Every system has it's own characteristic weakness, for example a religious society can easily turn into a theocracy ruled by priests, a "communist" society can easily turn into politburo dictatorship, and a capitalist society can easily turn into an aristocratic monarchy.

It's just the question of decentralization and awareness of the population that decides how the society will be shaped. So of course decentralization is the most important thing.

Now Bitcoin and Dash are 2 different and important cryptocurrencies, but they are also 2 different social experiments that we really need to focus on. And quite frankly this social experiment could very well prove one system over another.

It's obvious that "ideologies" should be tested in black boxes, before launching them onto society. Like communism for example, it's first launch was detrimental, the Bolsheviks were vicious thugs that really destroyed half of humanity.

However some still had hope that communism in a voluntary manner could actually work, so some of them have established the Kibbutz system, a total voluntary communist establishment, to test out communism without the atrocities.

And even given their best hopes the system had really failed, and they needed to do many free market reforms just to survive economically:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_crisis

So now we know for a fact that Communism doesn't work, in any shape or form. But this experiment was worth it, and it was much better done in small scales, instead of viciously forcing it on people like the Bolsheviks did.

Bitcoin vs Dash

So the same way, Bitcoin and Dash is like a small scale experiment of a sociological system.

• I would characterize Bitcoin as a semi-capitalist anarchist decentralized system

  • Since you have to have capital to run a node and to vote, so it's similar to the "only property owners can vote", but it's not like a corporation where you vote based on your % stake. And also miners and other institutions have leverage as well, so it's a complex 4 sector power system (developers, media , miner, exchange) that can influence the users, but basically it's still based on nodes and their vote.

• I would characterize Dash like a democracy of nodes

  • Since every full node is 1 vote. Now this is essentially similar to Bitcoin, but it's more self-governing and more sovereign than Bitcoin. You still receive inputs from other entities, but it's the nodes that vote

So they are both similar in the sense that the nodes need to spend resources to exist, and nodes vote only, so it's a representative democracy, however everyone can setup a node, but the difference is that:

• Dash does reward nodes from the reward pool, while Bitcoin doesn't.

So Bitcoin will inevitably centralized in nodes, as it only relies on altruism for people to host full nodes, whereas in Dash you get paid for it. So we shall see if altruism works or not (probably won't).

However Bitcoin has a much higher approval threshold, for Segwit it's 95%, whereas in Dash I think it's just 50%+1, as in other democracies.

Now the best thing is that voting is obvious and secure, so voting fraud doesn't happen, and they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

I have my own theory what kind of system could work in theory, but now we can experience systems in practice, and test them out before rolling them down on society. Maybe both are wrong, or maybe both are right, we can't know, it still has to be tested further.

Now the thing is that these 2 systems can have 2 major potential drawbacks:

• Bitcoin could turn into a technocracy
• Dash could experience the tragedy of the commons
  
  

Bitcoin - Technocracy

Bitcoin could turn into a technocracy, as we already see the BTC developers asserting massive influence over the system. Bitcoin Core declares itself as the sole ruler of Bitcoin, and they want to steer Bitcoin wherever they see fit. So this is a technocracy, if people let it happen.

Dash - Tragedy of the Commons

Meanwhile Dash could have a "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario, especially if they have a 50% threshold for votes. I have several times called for a minimum 90% approval threshold in case of a democracy, 50% is too coercive, and half of the population dictating something to the other half is tyrannical.

So if some rogue Dash developer introduces a "Theft Bill" as in confiscating 49% of the Dash account's balance and redistributing it amongst the other 51%, the other 51% would easily vote on that. Of course 51% would like to rob the other 49% especially if they are poor.

So I think democracy requires minimum 90% approval before issuing laws, otherwise it will turn in to a Tragedy of the Commons scenario.

---

But as I said, we can't know which system is right, maybe neither, maybe a new cryptocurrency will come that will introduce a more robust societal system. But testing them all is the key. Let's test them all and see which one works best and is the most secure.

I am open minded at this point, and haven't made my mind up yet. I have my own theories how society should work, but based on these experiments, I could change my mind if I see proof. And so should most people be. Let's stop with dogmatic ideologies and let's look at testing them out first on small scale.

---

Sources:
https://www.dash.org/graphics , CC BY-SA 4.0

---