pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 10 replies \ @kruw 11 Dec \ on: What happens when Bitcoiners start signaling with signatures? bitcoin
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
and is a slippery slope, forcing so called "voters" to verify KYC their addresses...
That is the whole game of this crap.
reply
These signatures have no legal force, so there’s no need for KYC.
But the potential selling pressure they represent is very real.
reply
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
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
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
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
LOL so now you want to see my stash too ?
nice try fed...
reply
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
It doesn't matter the cost.
Voting is dumb and useless and can be faked or even worse, converted in a KYC verification.
reply