RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

wattersblue in #exyle • 5 years ago (edited)

The precedent set by what they just did is going to be felt throughout the entire crypto industry by all DPOS and POS blockchains. There had to be a better way.

What exactly were these witnesses saving btw? Their seat at the table?

Even if Justin tried to move steem over to tron, everyone would have the option of remaining with steem classic if they so desired. This looks like more about preserving witness spots then actually protecting steem. All of the Top 20 Witnesses (that voted for this) should step down indefinitely to prove that this was best for steem and not just for them financially.

5 years ago in #exyle by wattersblue

0.00 BPC

4 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

fredrikaa 5 years ago

While it may have taken this soft fork to trigger the news and install the potential FUD that it may, unfortunately, bring. It still was possible the whole time and thus never really changed in terms of dpos security and quality (although perception is of course important).

Also, the demonstrated negative effect that one entity of aligned witnesses can have also reinforces the argument for why it is so dangerous for one giant stakeholder to be able to vote in all the witnesses needed to have super majority...

My preference would be that following this, we reduce the total witness vote to 10. While it will still be theoretically possible for someone to spend a hundred million dollars (assuming they would make price go up) in order to get the stake needed to vote in 20 witnesses, it would take a lot more stake than it does right now.

That said, I can understand that in the face of such a vulnerability, witnesses find it responsible to "pause" the ability for that to happen until a workable solution or sufficient clarification/guarantee is in place.

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

jaki01 5 years ago

My preference would be that following this, we reduce the total witness vote to 10.

Exactly! I think five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be fine.

Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

roelandp 5 years ago

this will not help. to maintain the status quo one can create multiple account and spread the stake formerly with just one account to multiple and have the exact same influence.

Although the witness voting logistic is certainly open to discussion and potential solutions, this IMHO is not a solution to reduce influence over these lists.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

jaki01 5 years ago

Thanks for replying, but I don't get that:

If I spread my SP to - for example - three accounts, every of these accounts has only a third of the SP of the original account. So if then every of these three accounts voted for ten witnesses, the vote for every single witness would be significantly weaker (than a vote of the original account).

This effect would be even stronger in case every single account could only vote for lets say five witnesses.

0.00 BPC

[-]

wattersblue 5 years ago

I like the idea of 5 as well. I believe 10 to still be too high.

0.00 BPC

1 vote