RE: The solution to avoid the mafias in the witnesses and is my last call to all witness and the community in general: Bts Eos Dct Ppy Steem
The only thing I'm trying to say is that you should not vote for just one witness or four, you must be obliged to vote all the necessary ones. If you need 11 players for a football team you must choose 11 not one, it is the same here if you need 45 witnesses I must vote at least 45.
For example: I have 100.000 PPY, I divide them into ten different accounts and I vote for myself on tree witness different name but all same person. Now i have tree different witness actives over my control.
It is now possible and it is not legal.
IMO not need explain more why its not legal right?
when talking About "decentralization" "Democracy".
With my system this can not be done so easily. i work in fraud at citibank in the past ,so i know what i m talking about.
AND To make it clear, I do not propose put or remove anyone, I do not even ask for my vote, what I say is that it is broken for me is not functional. Just that. My point of view. /hugs
I agree with your concern, as I understand it, but I do not think that what you are proposing will address that concern.
I agree with the concern that if one person or a group of people pretend to run multiple witnesses rather than just one, then that is a problem.
However, I do not think that your proposed approach fixes the problem.
The minimum number of witnesses required on the various Graphene blockchains is only 11. So, I do not see how voting for 45 witnesses helps.
Even if anyone (whether a conscientious stakeholder, or a deceitful conspiracy of stakeholders) votes for 45 witnesses (of which 3 are controlled by the conspiracy), then the conspiracy is still getting voted in. Although, perhaps to your point, it is true that their fraction of the total witness payout will be less than if a conscientious voter had unknowingly voted for 11 witnesses of which the conspiracy of 3 were coincidentally among them. However, a voter still does not know if all 11 or all 45 witnesses are colluding.
Maybe the introduction of some random number of witnesses into the pool would be beneficial. But I wonder to what end? If all witnesses are colluding, what damage can they do? If they do not report off-chain data correctly, or do not report at all on a particular event, then that will be obvious to everyone. Perhaps the biggest issues as I see them are:
(a) an on-chain game involving random number generation by witnesses, and
(b) an on-chain game where players must make a move within a certain amount of time but where witnesses could suppress a move by a player and thereby cause the player to lose a turn/move.
For this to succeed requires stakeholders who have less voting power than the conspiracy and/or stakeholders who do not have the means to detect these issues taking place.
I do not currently have the answers to these concerns, but I am glad that you are raising them.
Agree, whit you.
and for make clear However, I do not think that my proposed approach fixes the problem too.
and when i said: voted for 45 its an example. not a solution.
its an example for look the way for fix some bug.
just that. thanks for read and write.
Note: And in my opinion you have to vote for more than necessary to have some on the bench as they say in football, baxters-sports-witness wants to run the testnet again, that the witnesses who are going to be waiting for votes that are more likely to capture votes while running the test net
I like the idea of the bench witnesses running on the TestNet
I like the idea of the bench witnesses running on the TestNet =
thanks too = baxters-sports-witness his idea. ;) and i like too, cheers