Let's change 1SP 30 votes (current) to 1SP 1vote
Preparing for the Four-Party Dialogue as a representative from the Korean community(scheduled on 3/11(Wed) 11pm KST), I am focusing on specific issues that we may discuss, instead of vague things like "we love STEEM".
Background
I have read roadmaps from the participants(Steem foundation, Tron foundation, and Steem witnesses) but I have to admit that these ones are "good" in nature but definitely lack details. In other words, if these are all the opinions from participants I do not think we can reach any kind of agreement.
Compromises are needed to reach an agreement, and to get there we first need to check what are the "absolute NO" for each party. After eliminating them, then we may negotiate on other issues.
Analysis of the current situation
Justin says that he wants to be sure that his accounts(and funds) will not be locked up, like in 22.2.
From my point of view, leaving possibility of getting frozen again is absolute NO for Justin. It is scary even if it is a mere possibility, and he has actually seen that it might actually happen if super-majority of top 20 witnesses decides to do so.
And we know that under the current DPoS system, basically everything is possible if super-majority of top 20 witnesses agree. So giving up witness voting rights as some 22.2 community asks for would be absolute NO for him.
On the other hand, 22.2 witnesses worry that as we have seen in 22.5, Justin may take super-majority of top 20 and do whatever hard fork if Steem INC accounts' witness voting rights are not restricted.
- In fact, the 22.2 witnesses made an urgent request to the Korean community (@proxy.token) that proxy.token would vote for 22.2 witnesses so that Justin may not hard fork, and proxy.token changed the votes so that 7 of top 20 witnesses are 22.2 witnesses.
Proposal: 1SP 1 vote
Achieved Goal: neither Justin/22.2 witnesses cannot do hard fork by having at least 5 among top 20 witnesses.
Proof(rough version):
Justin controls about 25% of total SP available. If he uses this voting right for 5 candidates, each get about 5%.
There can be at most 15 witnesses who may have more than 5%. Suppose there are 16 candidates with >5% witness votes. It means that the total witness votes > 16 * 5% + 5 * 5%(Justin's) = 105%, but the total witness votes should be at most 100%. Contradiction.
The other way is much easier. It is pretty clear that Justin cannot have 16 top witnesses with 25% share.
- The beauty of this method is that it does not require any "trust" or "promise".
It makes sense
Almost all democracy adopts 1 person 1 vote, which is equivalent 1 steem 1 vote here.
And do you really think 1 steem 30 votes makes sense, when we vote for only 20 main witnesses? At least to me, it sounds like voting for 2 candidates for the presidential election.
Furthermore, it will alleviate the problem - de facto centrailziation - we already had. We all know that unless you get the vote from big whales like freedom (proxied to @pumpkin), it is very difficult to get into top 20.
- In fact, @aggroed previously touted once that he was the only top 20 who didn't get vote from freedom(pumpkin) and blocktrades.
I believe that reducing the number of votes will help to achieve decentralization (if this is what you value).
Implementation details
I am not a programmer so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement 1 SP 1 vote, but I guess that it won't be too difficult.
And the above argument may be modified in other ways. For example:
1SP 1 vote, but you may vote for multiple candidates with lower power: say you have 100 SP and vote for aggroed and yabapmatt (Go Splinterlands!), then each get 50 SP worth of votes.
1SP 3~5 vote: as long as we keep the total votes low, we still solve the above problem.
Next topic: Powerdown
My next posting will be about Powerdown. More specifically,
Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?
Exchanges: should exchanges be allowed to powerdown faster?
That's it for today. I am looking forward to reading your feedback and thoughts.
- @roalandp, @shadowspub(@guiltyparties), @justinsunsteemit: I would like you to review this suggestion before the meeting.
Good Idea, another additional option would be that one can downvote Witnesses.
Thank you for the comment.
I was thinking about the downvote option also, but just wanted to move step by step.
I think you should be able to vote for as many witnesses (or as few) as you want, and the % will be divided among them. Ex: vote 2 witnesses @ 50% SP, or vote 100 witnesses @ 1% SP. I agree something ought to change from the current 30 votes but I leave it to programmers to crunch the math and explain what creates the most secure system.
That definitely works too. As long as 1sp 1vote(in total), we achieve the same goal.
Yes, the multiplication effect we have now seems strange and unbalanced. Maybe someone could enlighten me why it is that way to begin with?
I'd also like to see an additional benefit for anyone who has staked for 13 weeks or more, perhaps your witness vote is at its full potential once you stake for a longer period of time. That would also reduce the chances of quick stake to change consensus
THAT, right there. The whole idea that your witness vote only becomes fully "vested" after you have committed to hold stake a for a while, makes a lot of sense in the context witnesses being tasked with the long term stewardship of the blockchain....
Honestly, my favorite idea is that Steem Power and witness voting was a simple equation of stake amount * stake length. Why would this be good?
Let's say someone from Venezuela can only afford to purchase 500 STEEM to power up, while the average person on Steem can afford 5000. The poorer person could have an equal amount of upvote/downvote potency and witness vote potency simply by being willing to lock up their stake for 10x as much time as the average user.
In this system its not just about how much STEEM you lock up, the longer you lock up your STEEM the more influence you have over the blockchain. This could be very good for the price of STEEM because a lot of STEEM would get locked up for very long periods of time, but it would also be a much more fair system.
For example, let's say a person had 50 STEEM and was willing to lock it up for 10 years. They would be equally influential in the network as someone with 5000 STEEM locked up for 36 days and 12 hours.
At first thought, this sounded very good. But then, think about the current scenario. If TRON locks up their stake for 1 week longer, this will require the rest of the community to lock up for 1 week longer. It's trivial for TRON to do it but probably extremely difficult for the community.
In fact, TRON can lock up for 1 year and this will give them huge governance advantage. The rest of the community likely wouldn't be able to match that and will lose control over the chain. For TRON, locking up for 1 year wouldn't be such a big deal because they can't sell their huge stake in a short time period anyways. So powering it down over a long time seems like quite a desirable trade-off for more governance power.
Same for any larger stakeholder. The large stakeholder would probably enjoy more influence over the reward pool and governance and SPS proposals in exchange for powering down for multiple years. If they have a good-size stake, they can power down over multiple years and get some good amount of STEEM every week. Whereas the small stakeholder, if powered up for a longer period of time, would get a negligible amount of STEEM each week, so why would they choose to power up for a longer period of time?
Overall, I am thinking such a change will put small stakeholders at a disadvantage.
I prefer 1SP = 1 vote, multiple candidates. I don't think 3-5 votes is enough redundancy for passive users. Investors may want to vote for witnesses but they don't want to check their votes every day. At the same time members of a community may want to use all their votes to elect their own witness.
I think disabled witnesses should be automatically excluded from the calculation and votes should be divided evenly among your voted active witnesses.
I’ve always been pro 4 week power down. I made a proposal about it. I don’t think the exchanges deserve a bailout but I do want a 4 week vesting period for our community. @thecallmedan spoke to me about 1 SP 1 Vote and I think that is fine also.
Thank you for sharing your opinion! It weights more to me as you are one of the witnesses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
um... what?
1:1 doesn't mean one vote.
It means one coin can only be allocated to one witness.
How much would that cost then?
Just to clarify: it's 1 steem power 1 vote, not 1 steem account 1 vote. As you mentioned already, the latter is vulnerable for exploits.
If this is a dumb question, just shoot me. What happens if I have 2 SP?
U can have 2 sp for one witness or 1 so for two witnesses. My understanding
What happens if I have 300000000 SP?
Lol than no one else would be interested because no one else owns anything on platform
This is too hard for a Canadian.
You own all the steems. Congratulations
I win?!?!
Thank you!
I would be pro 4 week PD. Exchanges should not be allowed to PD quicker as then they can vote with users funds more easily.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. I think I would support that proposal as well.
I've seen this idea floating around, since it would have to be voted in by those with power and could potentially limit their power I find it unlikely this will ever get implemented.
It's not harsh words for our current witnesses though, it's just how the world works, people will rarely vote to limit their own power.
Thank you for pointing it out. Yes, I suspect the same (untold) reason - will see how it develops.
This opinion must be adopted.
I hope we can adopt this.
Thank you for addressing one of the most important points of all which led to this chaotic event.
1sp 1 witness vote indeed!!
Unless I am missing somthing, I think 1sp 1vote is natural way to go.