Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the
bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.
Your incessant use of this canard only weakens your arguments. bitcoinocracy is no more credible than consider.it.
Bitcoinocracy is immune to Sybil attack, because you must prove ownership of BTC to participate.
Consider.it is so open to Sybil attack it might as well be a honeypot.
The former is signal, the latter is noise.
No. All the above is noise. That's my point. The only signal is the emergent consensus of the network. The only vote that matters is the ultimate decision on who accepts what within a block. That majority will determine the longest chain. The longest chain, in turn, defines Bitcoin. Anything other than that is an unreliable 'measure' of power within the system.