RE: Let's change 1SP 30 votes (current) to 1SP 1vote

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Let's change 1SP 30 votes (current) to 1SP 1vote

View the full context

edicted in SCT.암호화폐.Crypto • 6 years ago

1:1 voting is a great idea that I've been supporting as well. In your example, voting 2 witnesses would give them both 50%, but just like with upvoting content, it would be pretty easy to upvote one witness more than another.

Powerdowns are another issue entirely. There's some talk of being charged a "burn fee" to powerdown early, so you'd get the money back faster but less of it.

Personally I think we should have voting every month to determine if the powerdown time goes up or down. I also like the burn feature.

6 years ago in SCT.암호화폐.Crypto by edicted

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

nonameslefttouse 6 years ago (edited)

1:1 is pointless now. Who can afford to buy enough stake to take over the chain again, after all this is said and done? Think about it. WHY would someone spend millions upon millions to take over? Think about it. There was only ONE opportunity to hijack this chain cheaply. That's done. Anything else now is paranoia. Take a step back and look at the entire picture. Ask yourselves how someone could pull of this same nonsense. Ask yourselves what they would achieve by doing what we see here today, again. Think.

There are already people here with tens of thousands of sock puppet accounts. That 1:1 in my mind seems so easy to manipulate, compared to the system now. These requested changes are spawned by fear and nothing else.

1:1 All somebody has to do is LOOK at how many votes the top slots have, create that many accounts, fill them with a bot, take over the the chain. Simple and far cheaper. BAD IDEA. Or maybe I'm just on crack and didn't read this properly.

0.00 BPC

[-]

edicted 6 years ago

1:1 isn't pointless, it was always the logical answer for how voting should work. The ability to Sybil attack this network was built into it from the start... almost purposeful it seems. Maybe it was a good thing to bait one now instead of later.

1:1 makes a lot more sense for more reasons than just network security. It also makes it easier to elect single witnesses to the top 20 in a much faster timeframe. There are so many reasons to do it, probably the biggest one is just that it makes the most logical sense to everyone who is trying to figure out the platform. 1:30 makes it looks like we attacked ourselves on purpose like idiots. Again, maybe this was all part of the master plan to bait something insane like exchanges attacking us. Obviously this is far fetched, but whatever.

0.00 BPC

[-]

nonameslefttouse 6 years ago

I meant to place that comment under the main post.

Unless I'm missing something, it took me all of about 2 minutes of thought and I already found a way to exploit that system for far cheaper than what it would cost to do it today.

Everyone thinks they know how to fix STEEM. But is it really broken? Always moving the goal posts. I've seen this a million times over the years. Everyone is getting pulled in every direction, panicking, armchair politicians, experts and lawyers. Instead of getting good at the game, people always want to change the rules. Look how many people weren't even voting for witnesses until recently. Was the system broken or were the people broken?

Think.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

edicted 6 years ago

Unless I'm missing something, it took me all of about 2 minutes of thought and I already found a way to exploit that system for far cheaper than what it would cost to do it today.

Did you now?
Share with the class.

I don't see how that's possible.
Giving 30 votes in a 20 witness system is absurd.

0.00 BPC

[-]

nonameslefttouse 6 years ago

The COST of taking over the chain is what people need to think about. If I was only allowed to have 10 votes, I could make two accounts and have 20 votes.

If I was allowed one vote, I could make twenty accounts and have 20 votes.