RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

Sort:

Trending

geekgirl 5 years ago

It would still be based on SP you have. Instead of having an ability to vote for 30 witnesses it would be less, maybe like 10. So that one stakeholder can’t decide who all consensus witnesses are.

0.00 BPC

valued-customer 5 years ago (edited)

I don't think you grasp that splitting your stake across multiple accounts causes the limitation on witness votes to be split across the accounts as well. It's true that it would reduce the amount of stake each account could vote with, but the ~75M Steem is still enough split 20 ways to be a deciding factor in consensus witness elections.

Consider this as well. If one stakeholder has 1M Steem each witness vote cast is for 1M Steem, meaning that stakeholder applies 30M Steem worth of influence on the witnesses. Another stakeholder has 10 Steem, and each vote for witness they cast is worth 10 Steem, meaning they deploy 300 Steem worth of influence on the witnesses. The difference in influence on governance between the two stakeholders is not 999,990 Steem, but 29,999,700 Steem. This is how the current witness election mechanism effects centralization of governance by multiplying the influence of substantial stakeholders 30x.

I reckon influence on the witnesses should be equitable, and 1 Steem = 1 witness vote increases decentralization of governance of the blockchain 30x from current conditions.

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

I think we are on the same page. We both want to see decreased amount of witnesses votes per account. Your idea is basically to lower to 1 vote per account, still based on Steem/SP you have. It makes sense. I like it. Not an easy task to convince the witnesses.

0.00 BPC

valued-customer 5 years ago

I find that nothing worth doing is ever easy.

0.00 BPC

smooth 5 years ago

No matter what rules you come up with someone with 150% as much stake as all the other voting stake put together is going to be overwhelmingly dominant to the point of breaking all hope of decentralization.

There are some limited mitigations possible, which carry security tradeoffs (since you are, in effect, deliberately enabling a minority which you can't know is "good" or "bad" in any instance) but they're partial at best.

0.00 BPC

jaguar.force 5 years ago

you are not listening, reducing the amount of witnesses an account can vote would have no effect in this situation, Justin could just spread the 80 million steem in several accounts, do you understand this or do you need a further explanation?

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

For example limit the votes amount to 7. Now show me how you can spread 80mil sp to take over the chain. Consensus is 17, you need to split 80 mil into 3, which is 26.6 mil each and not enough to vote in all 17 consensus witnesses.

0.00 BPC

jaguar.force 5 years ago

Aha, ok, you vote in a fraction of the 17 witnesses that are needed for consensus, say 12? Then how is consensus achieved without the approval of those 12 witnesses? ;)

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

When you know you can’t take over, you will probably stay away from witness business completely.

0.00 BPC

jaguar.force 5 years ago

anyway, here you go: https://steempeak.com/steemit/@justinsunsteemit/open-letter-to-steem-community

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

Yes, saw that. Thanks.

0.00 BPC

smooth 5 years ago (edited)

You spread your 7 votes from the 73 million SP across an overlapping mix of 17 witnesses, which is 30 million each. That's probably more than enough. Currently top witnesses get around 45 million but that is with everyone having 30 votes as well. If you drop the 30 to 7, then the other witnesses' vote totals will drop too. If we, probably conservatively, estimate that totals drop by half, then totals are down to 22 million, and 30 million is easily in control.

If somehow that isn't enough, which I doubt, then you buy a small amount of STEEM to net up the total, campaign and count on at least a few people always being easily swayed to anything or confused, and/or you offer a few people to pay for their votes. It won't be hard to get what you need, even if this means the rest of the stakeholders are voting, say, 90% against you.

No plausible voting rules are going to contain 71% of the active voting stake from taking control. It won't happen. (And if you could, it would greatly weaken the chain by allowing small minority, potentially attacker, stakes to exert greater influence).

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

Over the last 3 years, I have seen at least half of the top 10 witnesses staying well within top 10 and never dropping below. With lowering the vote amount, I think based on history, we can say most of the top 10 will remain to be the first preference for most voters.

While I agree that it is still possible for 73 mil stake to take over, it makes it more difficult, slow to execute without notice by others, and risky. Considering the risks 73 mil stake-holder would just stay away from voting altogether.

In the event of an attempt of taking over action by the same 73 mil stakeholder, there would be plenty of time for other stakeholders to consolidate their votes around the top 4-7 as a counter-measure to reject any hostile actions/forks.

This was my logic. But I don't know much. You are right. It wouldn't work.

0.00 BPC

jaguar.force 5 years ago (edited)

Ive had it with you lady, Of course he is right and you are wrong, smooth knows this chain and community 100 times better than you and you are just pulling your arguments out of your ass.
So why dont you just listen, watch and learn? Just a suggestion...

0.00 BPC

smooth 5 years ago

Not necessary. The discussion about the voting system is perfectly fine and appropriate. It is an exercise in tradeoffs and people see the advantages and disadvantages differently.

0.00 BPC

jaguar.force 5 years ago

Ok, I hear you.

0.00 BPC

geekgirl 5 years ago

0.00 BPC