I don't know anything about Multichain so I'm not sure if this is the answer you're looking for, but here's one answer that might help you.
The interesting thing about proof-of-work (Nakamoto) blockchains is that they enable a constantly-changing set of unknown nodes on the internet to achieve consensus under certain assumptions about the adversary (i.e., ...
Blockchains are a bad solution for voting, and in my opinion the widespread interest in using them for this purpose is misguided.
One of the important properties of a voting system is making sure that it is impossible for a voter to prove after the fact what vote they cast, in order to avoid vote selling or intimidation. Because of this, systems that do ...
The other answers explain the problem that mining solves -- of the many possible valid blockchains, which is the one that everyone can agree on? Proof of work solves this -- the valid chain that took the most work to produce is the one that everyone agrees on.
There are other solutions. Note that some of these may not be sufficiently secure for some use ...
I'd like to add my own answer and remark that Alin Tomescu's answer does a good job of explaining the problem proof of work solves, so I won't go into those details.
The concept you describe could work. The problem is it makes no sense to use a blockchain to do this. Since your concept requires trust in the original issuer there's no reason for a blockchain ...
You can use colored coins to do voting on the Blockchain.
You can start by creating "Vote coins", and issue as many of them as you have registered voters. Then you ask the voters to generate a Bitcoin address, and that they give it to you.
You then send 1 "vote coin" to each of those addresses. You designate two or more addresses, one for each candidate/...
This question is based on a misconception. Miners do not vote on proposals. Consensus changes to Bitcoin are made by the entire ecosystem transitioning to new rules that they choose, by running node software that enforces these rules.
Miners are a part of that ecosystem, and their enforcing of new rules is part of what makes them safe. But if miners refuse ...
See my answer here to address some of your misconceptions. TL;DR: miners signal support in blocks for certain rule changes in order to coordinate activation, not to determine whether it is accepted or not.
As for the actual mechanism used to signal, a number have been used in the past:
Time based: BIP16, BIP30
Early softforks (up to mid 2012) used a simple ...
I understand that Bitcoin currently is using the chain with most
proof-of-work as consensus.
However could this method be improved,
like only allow one block being generated at any given time, and each
node verifies this block with its own past data.
No, it can't be improved in this way; not in Bitcoin's permissionless or decentralized threat model where ...
Your proposal is not sufficiently specified:
How is the authoring node selected?
How does a node prove his authority to author a block?
How do other nodes show support for the published block?
How can the support for a published block be verified by other nodes?
It is not clear how your proposal achieves consensus at all. Additionally, there doesn't seem ...
Who does make the decision which feature of bitcoin to include?
The Bitcoin Core developers, particularly the ones with commit access, make the ultimate decision about what features to add to Bitcoin Core---but they do listen to community feedback, particularly polite and knowledgeable comments left on GitHub pull requests.
What will be the procedure of ...
The actual stated development process can be found here. That said, there's become a rule where enough core developers need to "ACK" it like seen in this pull request.
Will there be a procedure for voting? If core devs feel it is safe, tested, useful, well written, match coding style, etc. then it gets merged into bitcoin. This is usually not easy and the ...
Yes, the information is public and in the ledger history.
you can find how inflation works in Stellar.org's mandate
in a nutshell: you can look at the inflation transaction that runs every week and look at its metadata. The metadata ...
E-voting is a hard problem. There are three major sub-problems: (with two extras if you use a Bitcoin-based system)
How do you provide a trustworthy computing environment?
How do you distribute voting keys to voters? (Or, how does the government get an accurate list of keys that belong to real voters, with no duplicates?)
How do you prevent denial of ...
Such a system could be easily gamed by people who simply spam the network with transactions and by miners who choose what transactions to include in their blocks. The penalty which they incur is still very small as compared to income of major economic players.
It does not take into account the amount of coins and also does not consider the vote of people ...
I believe http://followmyvote.com is worth looking into; at least they claim to allow both anonymity, security and auditability at the same time. I'm not sure if it's resistant to vote-buying, it sounds a bit too good to be true, but I'd recommend to reach out to Adam Kaleb Ernest and ask for details.
There is also the opposite approach, just accept that ...
as for making votes secret, we can use coinjoin.
Groups of 1000 people mix their votes together. You can prove that a person made one of the votes in the pool of 1000, but you cannot prove which vote was theirs.