pull down to refresh

What happens when Bitcoiners start signaling with signatures?
286 sats \ 16 comments \ @KoinVote 11 Dec bitcoin
I’ve been sitting with an idea lately.
Bitcoin’s value doesn’t really come from scarcity alone. It comes from the people who choose to save in it.
And that made me wonder:
What happens when holders start expressing preferences, using the same keys they save with? Not transactions, just signatures.
If meaningful economic weight started pointing in one direction, would that signal matter in the real world?
write
preview
related posts
21 sats \ 10 replies \ @kruw 11 Dec
There's no skin in the game when you signal using a signed message - You don't have to follow through with your stated preference.
If you want to show conviction for a >thing<, then you should commit to a smart contract that siphons coins away from people who are proposing the >opposite thing<. See https://x.com/Rob1Ham/status/1983954652103164256
reply
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
and is a slippery slope, forcing so called "voters" to verify KYC their addresses... That is the whole game of this crap.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @KoinVote OP 11 Dec
These signatures have no legal force, so there’s no need for KYC. But the potential selling pressure they represent is very real.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
Then danger do not come from "legal force" but from bad actors leaking the info. I can deal very easily and rebut the "legal force", but I cannot rebut the bad guy coming to my door with a shotgun asking for my wallets.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @KoinVote OP 11 Dec
That risk is real, yes.
But without KYC, a signature only proves that “a holder exists”, not who the holder is.
A bad actor would still need some separate doxxing vector to connect a signature with a physical identity.
So the safety question seems less about the signature itself, and more about whatever personal exposure already existed.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
a signature from a pseudo-identity worth absolute ZERO, so why bother? I can create infinite so called identities to sign a message, so is totally worthless for voting. Voting in itself is dumb.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @KoinVote OP 11 Dec
True, a pseudo-identity can be created infinitely.
What can’t be created infinitely is the Bitcoin behind it. That’s the part that can’t be faked, and the part that creates the constraint.
So the signature isn’t the signal by itself. The economic weight attached to it is what makes the difference.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
LOL so now you want to see my stash too ? nice try fed...
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @KoinVote OP 11 Dec
A signature isn’t the cost. What it reveals is the holder’s preference, and the cost appears when reality moves against that preference.
Imagine two candidates , A supports light bulbs, B supports candles. A light-bulb manufacturer holds a meaningful amount of Bitcoin. If they sign a message supporting A, the signature itself carries no cost. The real cost is that their savings are now exposed to the future they’re signaling for.
If the world shifts in a direction that harms their industry, their Bitcoin position could be pressured into selling, or lose purchasing power in ways they cannot ignore.
And depending on how widely Bitcoin is held across the population, this kind of signal may influence voters to very different degrees.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
It doesn't matter the cost. Voting is dumb and useless and can be faked or even worse, converted in a KYC verification.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 11 Dec
https://twiiit.com/Rob1Ham/status/1983954652103164256
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @OriginalSize 12 Dec
put your money where your mouth is
That's what was pre-populated in this box as I began to answer.
And it's fitting because I don't think anything good or straightforward happens if people sign with keys holding value. One bad thing is that the public key has to be disclosed. Money talks because it's spent and people do stuff for it, not because it's displayed.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @KoinVote OP 12 Dec
When you put money on a candidate, you’re expressing a belief that they will win.
When you submit a signed message, you’re expressing a preference for who you want to win.
Those are two completely different signals. Both are valid, but they answer different questions.
And just to clarify, a signed message does not require you to reveal your public key.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OriginalSize 12 Dec
How does a signature link then to an address?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @KoinVote OP 12 Dec
Good question.
In Bitcoin message signing, the signer doesn’t submit their public key explicitly. During verification, the public key can be recovered from the signature and hashed to check that it matches the provided address.
So the link comes from public key recovery during verification, not from the signer publishing their public key.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 11 Dec
would that signal matter in the real world?
NO. Why? because people are dumb and vote for stupid things.
reply