You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Comparing EOS to Amazon Cloud Computing
I think it would be much easier for governments to influence mining pools (or the power generation large mining farms need). There are hundreds of backups and even if a government was able to somehow stealthily control 15 independent entities (unlikely, IMO), if they ever did anything corrupted, they would be removed as BPs by the token holders protecting their investment.
Buying out a large POS network is orders of magnitude more expensive than a 51% attack in POW. To acquire the coins a government would need buy large sums in the market, sky rocketing the price, making it even more expensive to gain majority voting power. Only to destroy there own stake? Does not make sense anyone would even attempt it. The larger the network value is the more expensive to acquire influence.
I agree, but my concern with pure PoS (compared to DPoS) is that those who have control gain more control where as with DPoS, there's at least a chance to give more control to non-producers (which is how Steem works), but has some issues in EOS right now (as mentioned here).
Agree but only w/ unique human accounts to help balance power.
I'm hearing something different from Cedric Dahl. At 4:30 in this video he outlines why DPoS is destined to fail:
Do you have a rebuttal to this?
Let me just add that I think if the SEC managed to get legal pressure put upon block producers (in the form of cease and desist letters as Cedric says above), it might cause EOS to drift back into Chinese dominance and the remaining block producers to move into immune jurisdictions.