RE: Tron and Steemit Join Forces

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Tron and Steemit Join Forces

valued-customer in #steemit • 6 years ago (edited)

The present witness voting system is why his stake necessitates our trust. Stake is able to vote 30x for witnesses. This multiplies the advantage of large stakeholders over lesser by 30x. This why I advocate for 1 Steem = 1 vote for witness, because it eliminates that multiplication of stake weight for witness votes.

Large stakeholders still have more weight to vote with if we change to 1 Steem = 1 Vote, but proportionally to the amount of stake they hold. If the founder's stake, now no longer in the wallet of the founders, is used to control the consensus witnesses, either by @justinsunsteemit contrary to his assertion he would not, or by whomever he sells it to, such as Zuckerborg, or Goolag, under the present rules it would be extremely unlikely the community could focus enough stake to prevent a HF against to their interests.

1 Steem = 1 Vote makes that 30x more likely.

6 years ago in #steemit by valued-customer

0.00 BPC

Sort:

Trending

[-]

abitcoinskeptic 6 years ago

1 Steem = 1 vote is an interesting idea. However, enough witnesses could still be bought to completely mess with the consensus over and over again until he gets his way so actually I'm against that.

0.00 BPC

[-]

valued-customer 6 years ago (edited)

I reckon the more stake someone possesses, the more they'll be in favor of the status quo. The 75 Million SP the sale of Steemit, Inc. delivered to Tron, when multiplied 30x, is 2.25 Billion as votes for witnesses. With 1 Steem = 1 vote that 75 Million will be 75 Million.

While 75 Million SP is presently enough to install ~1/3 of the top 20, it is not enough to control the consensus. Messing with consensus is far less problematic than possessing it at will.

There's no law that prevents Tron from reselling that stake to Fakebook, Twatter, Goolag, or some other censorship happy institution, and I expect all those institutions would quickly undertake their sole option to exercise total control of the code having total control of the consensus would grant them.

That @justinsunsteemit hasn't done this is proof of his benevolent intent towards Steem IMHO. That @ned sold to Tron instead of one of those other institutions is proof of his as well. But this may not be the end of the matter, and I expect @justinsunsteemit will agree that Steem will be more secure if the 30x increase in power larger stakeholders have over lesser to control the consensus witnesses is removed in favor of equitable distribution.

But who am I?

Edit: there's a reason no stock corporation uses this system, and uses equity as influence instead.

0.00 BPC

[-]

abitcoinskeptic 6 years ago

It makes sense. I imagine first and foremost everyone wants to make money on their investment. I do know he actually bought some of the tech, but the majority of Steem is still free to use and fork or whatever. But I can't even see a fork as a viable option unless he does something really messed up. Too many people would side with him if some decided to fork him out just because Tron and Justin make them sad.

I do think your idea is worth considering in the next hard fork after SMT, especially if the power down time is going to be reduced further. Another idea is to have STEEMIT accounts use the novote feature which would mean they would have to go through a power-down cycle (power down then power up) to cancel that giving everyone enough time to react.

0.00 BPC