pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25559 · v1 · pith:RXWWF7S3new · submitted 2026-06-24 · 💻 cs.DC

TwoStepDemocracy: Prototyping of self-evolving, democratic, and decentralized systems

Stan Verlaan , Johan Pouwelse This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords decentralized systemspeer-to-peergovernancevotingBitcoin fundingself-evolving protocolscryptographic identitiescoordination layer
0
0 comments X

The pith

A peer-to-peer prototype shows decentralized systems can evolve democratically by separating voting from funding.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces TwoStepDemocracy as a technical proof-of-concept for protocol-native evolution in decentralized systems. It combines costly cryptographic identities, peer-to-peer dissemination, issue and solution voting, and Bitcoin-based funding while keeping demand, approval, and payment separate so that money supports but does not control decisions. The authors implemented the system with local storage and signed governance objects, then measured performance, scalability, and costs across storage, identity management, and funding. A sympathetic reader would care because current decentralized projects still rely on central platforms and unpaid goodwill for changes. The results establish technical feasibility while noting that social viability needs larger testing.

Core claim

The TwoStepDemocracy prototype demonstrates that a coordination layer for self-evolving, democratic, and decentralized systems can be built as a peer-to-peer implementation using local storage, signed governance objects, and Bitcoin integration. Users propose and vote on issues to express demand, developers submit solutions for approval, and accepted work can receive voluntary non-custodial funding. The design keeps these steps separate. Performance, scalability, and cost studies across the three areas confirm the technical approach works, though social viability remains untested.

What carries the argument

The deliberate separation of demand (issue voting), approval (solution submission), and payment (Bitcoin funding) so that funding never grants extra voting power.

If this is right

  • Decentralized systems could update without depending on central platforms or informal maintainer authority.
  • Communities could coordinate changes through signed, peer-to-peer governance objects stored locally.
  • Bitcoin funding can support development while leaving voting power unchanged.
  • Performance and cost metrics for storage, identity, and funding become measurable in such a coordination layer.
  • Protocol evolution can occur through explicit demand and approval steps rather than goodwill alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same separation mechanism could apply to governance in other peer-to-peer applications beyond software updates.
  • Real-world adoption would still require testing whether users actually propose, vote, and fund through the system at scale.
  • Integration with additional payment networks might expand funding options without altering the voting separation.
  • If social viability holds, similar layers could reduce reliance on external platforms for open-source coordination.

Load-bearing premise

The separation of voting power from funding power will hold in actual implementation and user behavior.

What would settle it

An experiment or user study in which funded participants gain disproportionate influence over which solutions are approved would show the separation does not work as claimed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25559 by Johan Pouwelse, Stan Verlaan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of push, pull, and push-pull dissemination. In push dissemination, full objects are sent immediately upon creation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bitcoin transactions consume outputs from earlier trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the TwoStepDemocracy governance process. Users first express demand through issue votes. A submitted solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Peer authentication flow linking a Bitcoin registration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: System architecture detailing the internal modules, services, and models as well as the external dependency on a Bitcoin RPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Registration flow in the prototype. The participant creates an application-level key pair and pays the 50,000 satoshi registration fee [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Authentication flow. The peer first verifies the registration transaction and then issues a fresh challenge. The user signs this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Issue detail view in the prototype frontend. The page shows an issue, its current support level, and the submitted solutions linked to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Solution detail view in the prototype frontend. The page shows a submitted solution together with its solution vote and linked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bit-packing of object identifiers in an IHAVE message. local view of a single peer instead of a shared global source of truth. The implementation avoids storing derived values as au￾thoritative state. For example, issue popularity is com￾puted from issue vote objects. Similarly, campaign funding progress is derived from the currently valid pledges accord￾ing to their Bitcoin transaction states. This keeps… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measured SQLite storage requirements for fixed user lev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Estimated final transaction fee as the number of pledged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Decentralised systems are often built to avoid central control, but their evolution almost always depends on centralised platforms, informal maintainer authority, and a surprising amount of unpaid goodwill. To address this uncomfortable mismatch, we introduce TwoStepDemocracy, a technical proof-of-concept for protocol-native software evolution. The prototype combines costly cryptographic identities, peer-to-peer dissemination, issue and solution voting, and Bitcoin-based funding campaigns. Users can express demand by proposing and voting on issues; developers can submit concrete solutions; and accepted work can be linked to voluntary, non-custodial funding. The design deliberately separates demand, approval, and payment. This way, money can support a solution, but it never buys more voting power. The prototype demonstrates that such a coordination layer can be built as a peer-to-peer implementation with local storage, signed governance objects, and Bitcoin integration. We studied performance, scalability, and costs across storage, identity management, and funding. The results show technical feasibility, but not yet social viability. A larger user study is still needed to evaluate whether real communities would, in practice, vote, fund, and coordinate through this mechanism.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TwoStepDemocracy, a prototype for self-evolving, democratic, and decentralized systems. It describes a P2P coordination layer using costly cryptographic identities, peer-to-peer dissemination, voting on issues and solutions, and Bitcoin funding, with separation of demand, approval, and payment. The prototype uses local storage and signed governance objects, and the authors present performance, scalability, and cost studies, concluding technical feasibility but not social viability.

Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant for demonstrating a practical way to enable evolution in decentralized systems without central authority. The explicit separation of funding from voting power is a positive design choice that could prevent plutocracy in governance. The provision of a working prototype and performance study adds to its value as a technical contribution in distributed systems.

minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions studying performance, scalability, and costs but does not specify the metrics or scale of the experiments; adding a sentence on key results would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive assessment of TwoStepDemocracy, including recognition of its significance for decentralized governance and the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript is a direct implementation prototype describing a P2P coordination layer using local storage, signed governance objects, and Bitcoin integration. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions derived from inputs, and no derivation chain that could reduce to self-definition or self-citation. All claims are bounded to technical feasibility results from the built system, with explicit caveats that social viability requires separate user studies. No load-bearing steps exist that match any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper describes an engineering prototype rather than a theoretical model with derivations, so it introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or new invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5733 in / 1268 out tokens · 37637 ms · 2026-06-25T20:13:11.152835+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accessed: 2026-06-08

    GitHub.GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing. Accessed: 2026-06-08. Apr. 2026.URL: https: //github.blog/news- insights/company- news/github- copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/

    2026

  2. [2]

    Ac- cessed: 2026-06-09

    Vlad Fedorov.An update on GitHub availability. Ac- cessed: 2026-06-09. Apr. 2026.URL: https://github. blog/news- insights/company- news/an- update- on- github-availability/

    2026

  3. [3]

    Accessed: 2026-06-08

    GitHub.Changes to GitHub Copilot Individual plans. Accessed: 2026-06-08. Apr. 2026.URL: https://github. blog / news - insights / company - news / changes - to - github-copilot-individual-plans/

    2026

  4. [4]

    Two Case Studies of Open Source Software De- velopment: Apache and Mozilla

    Audris Mockus, Roy T. Fielding, and James D. Herb- sleb. “Two Case Studies of Open Source Software De- velopment: Apache and Mozilla”. In:ACM Transac- tions on Software Engineering and Methodology11.3 (2002), pp. 309–346.ISSN: 1049-331X.DOI: 10.1145/ 567793.567795

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Explor- ing the Impact of Socio-Technical Core-Periphery Structures in Open Source Software Development

    Chintan Amrit and Jos van Hillegersberg. “Explor- ing the Impact of Socio-Technical Core-Periphery Structures in Open Source Software Development”. In:Journal of Information Technology25.2 (2010), pp. 216–229.DOI: 10.1057/jit.2010.7

    work page doi:10.1057/jit.2010.7 2010

  6. [6]

    Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2019.DOI: 10.1109/ ESEM

    Guilherme Avelino et al.On the Abandonment and Survival of Open Source Projects: An Empirical Inves- tigation. Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2019.DOI: 10.1109/ ESEM . 2019 . 8870181. eprint: 1906 . 08058 (cs.SE). URL: https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ ESEM.2019.8870181

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Defining Blockchain Gover- nance: A Framework for Analysis and Comparison

    Rowan van Pelt et al. “Defining Blockchain Gover- nance: A Framework for Analysis and Comparison”. In:Information Systems Management38.1 (2021), pp. 21–41.DOI: 10.1080/10580530.2020.1720046

    work page doi:10.1080/10580530.2020.1720046 2021

  8. [8]

    The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Crisis of a Decentralised Infrastructure

    Primavera De Filippi and Benjamin Loveluck. “The Invisible Politics of Bitcoin: Governance Crisis of a Decentralised Infrastructure”. In:Internet Policy Re- view5.3 (2016).DOI: 10.14763/2016.3.427

    work page doi:10.14763/2016.3.427 2016

  9. [9]

    Blockchain: The Birth of Decentralized Governance

    Benito Arru ˜nada and Luis Garicano. “Blockchain: The Birth of Decentralized Governance”. In:Pom- peu Fabra University Economics Working Paper1608 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    A Definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking for the Classification of Peer-to-Peer Ar- chitectures and Applications

    R ¨udiger Schollmeier. “A Definition of Peer-to-Peer Networking for the Classification of Peer-to-Peer Ar- chitectures and Applications”. In:Proceedings of the First International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Com- puting. IEEE, 2001, pp. 101–102.DOI: 10.1109/P2P. 2001.990434.URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/P2P.2001. 990434

    work page doi:10.1109/p2p 2001

  11. [11]

    RFC 5694

    Gonzalo Camarillo.Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Architecture: Definition, Taxonomies, Examples, and Applicability. RFC 5694. Nov. 2009.DOI: 10.17487/RFC5694.URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5694

    work page doi:10.17487/rfc5694.url: 2009

  12. [12]

    Epidemic Algorithms for Repli- cated Database Maintenance

    Alan Demers et al. “Epidemic Algorithms for Repli- cated Database Maintenance”. In:Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Dis- tributed Computing. ACM, 1987, pp. 1–12.DOI: 10. 1145 /41840 .41841.URL: https :/ / doi. org/ 10. 1145 / 41840.41841

    arXiv 1987

  13. [13]

    Randomized Rumor Spread- ing

    Richard Karp et al. “Randomized Rumor Spread- ing”. In:Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 2000, pp. 565–574.DOI: 10.1109/SFCS.2000.892324.URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2000.892324

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.2000.892324.url: 2000

  14. [14]

    Dimitris Vyzovitis et al.GossipSub: Attack-Resilient Message Propagation in the Filecoin and ETH2.0 Net- works. 2020. eprint: 2007.02754 (cs.NI).URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2007.02754

    arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Ac- cessed: 2026-05-28.URL: https://github.com/libp2p/ specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub/gossipsub-v1.1

    libp2p.GossipSub v1.1: Security Extensions to Im- prove on Attack Resilience and Bootstrapping. Ac- cessed: 2026-05-28.URL: https://github.com/libp2p/ specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub/gossipsub-v1.1. md. [16]Digital Signature Standard (DSS). Federal Informa- tion Processing Standards Publication FIPS 186-5. National Institute of Standards and Technology...

    work page doi:10.6028/nist.fips.186- 2026

  16. [16]

    RFC 9380

    Armando Faz-Hernandez et al.Hashing to Elliptic Curves. RFC 9380. Aug. 2023.DOI: 10 . 17487 / RFC9380.URL: https : / / www . rfc - editor . org / rfc / rfc9380. [18]Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Au- thenticator Management. Special Publication NIST SP 800-63B-4. National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology, 2025.URL: https://pages.nis...

    2023

  17. [17]

    The Sybil Attack

    John R. Douceur. “The Sybil Attack”. In:Peer-to-Peer Systems: First International Workshop, IPTPS 2002. Springer, 2002, pp. 251–260.DOI: 10 . 1007 / 3 - 540 - 45748-8 24

    2002

  18. [18]

    Ac- cessed: 2026-05-25

    Bitcoin Developer Documentation.Transactions. Ac- cessed: 2026-05-25. 2025.URL: https : / / developer . bitcoin.org/devguide/transactions.html

    2026

  19. [19]

    Accessed: 2026-05-25

    Ava Chow.Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction For- mat. Accessed: 2026-05-25. 2017.URL: https://bips. dev/174/

    2026

  20. [20]

    Mark Erhardt.BIP 3: Updated BIP Process. 2025. URL: https://bips.dev/3/

    2025

  21. [21]

    2025.URL: https://docs.tezos.com/architecture/governance

    Tezos.Governance and Self-Amendment. 2025.URL: https://docs.tezos.com/architecture/governance

    2025

  22. [22]

    Analyzing V oting Power in Decentral- ized Governance: Who Controls DAOs?

    Robin Fritsch, Marino M ¨uller, and Roger Wat- tenhofer. “Analyzing V oting Power in Decentral- ized Governance: Who Controls DAOs?” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01176(2022). arXiv: 2204.01176 [cs.CY].URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.01176

    arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Binary V oting with Delegable Proxy: An Analysis of Liquid Democracy

    Zo ´e Christoff and Davide Grossi. “Binary V oting with Delegable Proxy: An Analysis of Liquid Democracy”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.08741(2017). arXiv: 1707.08741[cs.GT].URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1707.08741

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Liquid Democ- racy in DPoS Blockchains

    Chao Li, Runhua Xu, and Li Duan. “Liquid Democ- racy in DPoS Blockchains”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01090(2023). arXiv: 2309 . 01090 [cs.CY].URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01090

    arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Accessed: 2026-05-06

    Satoshi Nakamoto.Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Accessed: 2026-05-06. 2008.URL: https: //bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    2026

  26. [26]

    Accessed: 2026-05-06

    Ethereum Foundation.Proof-of-Stake Rewards and Penalties. Accessed: 2026-05-06. 2026.URL: https : / / ethereum . org / developers / docs / consensus - mechanisms/pos/rewards-and-penalties/

    2026

  27. [27]

    Michał Jo ´zwik and Johan Pouwelse.Smart- phoneDemocracy: Privacy-Preserving E-Voting on Decentralized Infrastructure using Novel European Identity. 2025. arXiv: 2507 . 09453[cs.CR].URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09453

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Accessed: 2026-05-06

    European Commission.EU Digital Identity Wallet. Accessed: 2026-05-06. 2026.URL: https : / / ec . europa . eu / digital - building - blocks / sites / spaces / EUDIGITALIDENTITYW ALLET/pages/694487738/ EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Accessed: 2026-05-06

    Human Passport.Human Passport Developer Plat- form. Accessed: 2026-05-06. 2026.URL: https://docs. passport.xyz/

    2026

  30. [30]

    Proof-of-Personhood: Redemoc- ratizing Permissionless Cryptocurrencies

    Maria Borge et al. “Proof-of-Personhood: Redemoc- ratizing Permissionless Cryptocurrencies”. In:2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW). IEEE, 2017, pp. 23–26.DOI: 10.1109/EuroSPW.2017.46

    work page doi:10.1109/eurospw.2017.46 2017

  31. [31]

    Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-Resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols

    Divya Siddarth et al. “Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-Resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols”. In:Frontiers in BlockchainV olume 3 - 2020 (2020).ISSN: 2624-7852. DOI: 10.3389/fbloc.2020.590171.URL: https://www. frontiersin.org/journals/blockchain/articles/10.3389/ fbloc.2020.590171

    work page doi:10.3389/fbloc.2020.590171.url: 2020

  32. [32]

    A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods

    Vitalik Buterin, Zo ¨e Hitzig, and E. Glen Weyl. “A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods”. In:Man- agement Science65.11 (2019), pp. 5171–5187.DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3337.URL: https://doi.org/10. 1287/mnsc.2019.3337

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3337.url: 2019

  33. [33]

    Accessed: 2026-05-31

    Gitcoin.Quadratic Funding. Accessed: 2026-05-31. 2026.URL: https://gitcoin.co/mechanisms/quadratic- funding

    2026

  34. [34]

    Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions

    Mark Bagnoli and Barton L. Lipman. “Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core through Private Contributions”. In:The Review of Economic Studies56.4 (1989), pp. 583–601.DOI: 10 . 2307 / 2297502

    1989

  35. [35]

    Mirko Zichichi et al.LikeStarter: A Smart-contract based Social DAO for Crowdfunding. 2019. arXiv: 1905.05560[cs.CY].URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1905.05560

    arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Studying the Association Between Bountysource Bounties and the Issue-Addressing Likelihood of GitHub Issue Reports

    Jiayuan Zhou et al. “Studying the Association Between Bountysource Bounties and the Issue-Addressing Likelihood of GitHub Issue Reports”. In:IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47.12 (2021), pp. 2919–2933.DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2020.2974469

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2974469 2021

  37. [37]

    BitTorrent or BitCrunch: Evidence of a Credit Squeeze in BitTorrent?

    David Hales et al. “BitTorrent or BitCrunch: Evidence of a Credit Squeeze in BitTorrent?” In:2009 18th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructures for Collaborative Enterprises. IEEE, 2009, pp. 99–104.DOI: 10.1109/WETICE.2009.22

    work page doi:10.1109/wetice.2009.22 2009

  38. [38]

    Self-replicating seedbox servers using programmable money

    Matei Dogariu and Johan Pouwelse. “Self-replicating seedbox servers using programmable money”. Forth- coming in the TU Delft Repository. Master’s thesis. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technol- ogy, 2026.URL: https://repository.tudelft.nl/

    2026

  39. [39]

    https://www.galaxy.com/insights/ research/bitcoin- onchain- fees- utxo

    Galaxy Research.Bitcoin Fees Collapse: What On- chain Data Tells Us. https://www.galaxy.com/insights/ research/bitcoin- onchain- fees- utxo. Accessed 2026- 06-20. 2025

    2026

  40. [40]

    https://www.investing.com/crypto/bitcoin/btc- usd- historical-data

    Investing.com.BTC/USD Bitfinex Historical Data. https://www.investing.com/crypto/bitcoin/btc- usd- historical-data. Accessed 2026-06-20. 2026

    2026

  41. [41]

    A Blockchain Consensus Protocol with Horizontal Scal- ability

    Kelong Cong, Zhijie Ren, and Johan Pouwelse. “A Blockchain Consensus Protocol with Horizontal Scal- ability”. In:2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops. Ed. by Burkhard Stiller. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–9.DOI: 10.23919/IFIPNetworking. 2018.8696555

    work page doi:10.23919/ifipnetworking 2018

  42. [42]

    Tag-Based Navigation for Peer-to-Peer Wikipedia

    Jenneke E. Fokker, Johan A. Pouwelse, and Wray Buntine. “Tag-Based Navigation for Peer-to-Peer Wikipedia”. In:Collaborative Web Tagging Workshop at WWW2006. Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 2006. A Acknowledgement on the use of AI Throughout the research, we used AI tools to challenge, im- prove, and simplify parts of our work. In particular, we used ChatGPT 5 ...

    2006