Is this question for money or are there no monetary winnings?

I vote that No, Ethereum willl not overtake BTC on any day of 2017. I decided based on BTC's current trajectory and Ethereum's lack of one, plus the unfortunate hackings and ETH's skrinking value. Here are the most up-to-date stats. As you can see, BTC is winning out. I just don't like ETH's chances and wouldn't be investing in them. Often in the tech world (and most capiltatistic industries that sell products) it's the first to make it to market that gains winning market share. Nobody remembers number two. After all, everybody knows Neil Armstrong but nobody's heard of B. Aldrin.

NAME MARKET CAP PRICE CIRCLUATING SUPPLY CHANGE(in last 24hours)
1. Bitcoin $43,256,798,068 $2635.90 16,410,637 BTC -2.04%
2. Ethereum $29,712,262,056 $320.24 92,781,233 ETH -4.46%
https://coinmarketcap.com/#USD.

Look at the price differences alone. One BTC is worth over $2600 and an ETH is worth a mere $320

11-20, i don't think it'll be very popular but every page on the internet gains at least one fan.

There's no evidence to suggest that this political philosophy, which is still in its infancy, would be able to look at statistics and amass data on the scale that established political pollster firms already do. And if it could, the politicians would be using it as a resource anyway, so the point is moot. It's unfortunate, it's a good idea in theory.

I vote never, because the system is just untenable.

I don't think it takes into account human nature much less the stubbornness of the current political establishment and their ability to maintain their capitalist interpretation of democracy.

The very fact that it's decentralize works against the idea, what countries are there a base in, what money is there to campaign or advertise or hire any staff at all (would people be expected to volunteer?) Which powerful/influential organisation or celebrity or political party or member of Parliament have they got to endorse this?

How would it work, in all reality? I just don't think it would, and the idea - while it is a nice one - just ultimately doesn't work.

Ps. I find this to be a confusingly written question.

I voted 18-34 countries because I think their increasing use is an inevitability. This is due to the ubiquity of drones already, the exponential growth rate of technology and drone company trends currently (they are multiplying). That Amazon has such an interest in it (they've created a division called Amazon Air and are already trying it out) is a good sign.

Moore's law states that technology grows exponentially, doubling every two years. The same law can be extrapolated to drone technology, especially considering how popular and useful the product is.

Drones don't encroach on any existing market that would be powerful enough to lobby against it in government, so there won't be excessive laws hindering their development. There will be knee-jerk laws, especially if there's a public safety incident involving drones (a terrorist attack, dropping some sort of corrosive liquid, drug-muling, being hacked an following someone around excessively etc), which may prevent all of the OECD countries from developing a drone system/companies/laws.

So, I predict drone technology will reach a maximum of 34 OECD countries by 2020. It's dangerous and unknown but also has the potential (and already is) to be extremely useful technology.

Mid 2016

The UK are in a very vulnerable and volatile political situation right now with their Brexit application. Even though an election has just been concluded the majority government relies on an unheard of before and rickety at best partnership between the Tories and Irish Nationalist (DUP). This volatile relationship could collapse at any moment, triggering a minority government and yet another election.

If the Tories fail to gain a majority foothold in this hypothetical election, they'll be unable to move forward on Brexit, with negotiations with the EU stalling indefinitely.

The other scenario is that the Labour party win a majority and decide to withdraw form Brexit entirely, attempting to rejoin to EU (this being in line with their political policies).
Thus making "The UK withdrawing its EU withdrawal" a very real possibility.

Poll averages and controversies surrounding Trump regarding Russia and the FBI make his position untenable. He didn't even win the popular vote when he was elected, instead he won the electoral college (he won all the important states whereas Hillary didn't despite her having the popular vote). This means that, technically, a majority of voters voted against him but he still won. Crazy!

Over the last 5 months he has steadily, and through a series of bizarre comments/tweets/incidents - lost voters' confidence and become an international laughing stock. Large swathes of the American populous (and international observers) are concerned at his behaviour and disturbed at his lack of ability as a leader.

However, he still has a lot of supporters who staunchly defend his honour and will support him no matter what.. These supporters - who have stuck with him thus far - will probably stay with him 'til the bitter end. So I vote 'bad' instead of 'very bad.'

30-40m. I think It'll be just below 40m (perhaps 38m) if the current trends continue as they are. People (at least for the now) seem to be purchasing this HD 4k technology en mass. But I don't think it will go above 40million units because it takes time for people to find out about these. Not to mention the parts of the population who already have one, or aren't interesting at all in one, or are increasingly switching off the TV and over to their smartphones and desktops. Prices will keep it from going up immensely, especially in a single year. The technology, not to mention public interest, is just not there yet. Though that's not to say that won't change in the following years.