RE: Democratizing Steem!
Of course, people will always try to maximize the system. But the entire point of this system is to make sure, that the top stake holders don't have as much influence on the top 20 witnesses.
Especially since witnesses 1-20 have the power to make all the decisions in relation to hard forks etc.
With >= 20 votes, pumpkin has an enormous influence in this. If we reduce this to <= 10, this helps a lot.
I'm not talking about saving the world, but I'm talking about decentralizing the election. And reducing the number of votes, certainly does that.
And I agree, this can be further reduced, to 5,3,1. But I think 10 is a good number. 10 allows people to select a number of witnesses which represent them well and they think represent Steem well while not giving anyone enough power to have such a huge influence in selecting ALL top 20 witnesses basically alone.
That isn't at all what the entire point of the system is.
It does not help a lot, it probably doesn't help anything at all, why would it anyway, you're asking for large stakeholders to split up their stake after all, like I said, why not limit it to one witness vote, it accomplishes exactly the same thing.
Like that post I linked, it's hardly the case. I don't think we should encourage people to split their stake up, I think that this suggestion fixes absolutely nothing and I wish you good luck to get the large stakeholders to undermine their power because of notions that "they have absolute power" or anything to that effect, especially when it's neither the case nor was it ever intended for this to be one witness one vote (which is where you want this to end up), it was intended actually to give people with more stake exponentially more power, after all, if you don't trust the large stakeholders to safeguard their investment it makes no sense to trust a bunch of small stakeholders to do the same.
Yeah, exactly, the intend is to centralize the system. Definitely. That's what Blockchain is about. Allowing huge stakeholders to control all the witnesses, that's not absolutely the reason why DPoS is so widely criticized. I don't want one person one vote, I want 10 votes. I stated that pretty clearly.
And no, I don't think it will result in splitting up stake. I don't think Pumpkin would split up his stake for this, nor do I think blocktrades would.
You're confusing concentration of wealth with centralization. Concentration is not centralization.
It is? And clearly these critiques are drummed up from pure unadulterated bullshit, much like that article I posted demonstrated, the large stakeholders don't control all the witnesses, but they should, after all, if you don't trust them to do it why trust smaller accounts with magnitudes less to lose than the large stakeholders?
It's the same effect:
There are 20 positions that are responsible for adapting new code changes, you don't trust large stakeholders to have a native choice to vote over 20 of them, so you want them to only vote over 10, because "democracy" (mob rule) or "decentralization" (where it actually means dissuading stake concentration), because there's a problem which doesn't exist, why not one person one vote, you clearly aren't fixing anything with this suggestion and I think you have absolutely no chance of getting people to vote against their own best interests, but good luck trying, maybe stake based systems aren't for you, maybe you don't see how undermining the basis for holding stake into one account or to concentrate stake undermines the entire reason for pos.
Of course this is centralization, centralization is having very few people having a lot of power over the system.
If that is a large stakeholder via a consensus node (PoS), a large stakeholder voting "his kind" into power (DPoS) or a large mining pool (PoW). All of these things undermine the principle of decentralization.
And as I mentioned PoW, all types of blockchain have similar issues.
If you'd read the literature, you'd know that all these blockchains are heavily criticized for these points. Because all of these blockchain allege decentralization, but in practice it's more a buzzword than real decentralization. (Minings pools, monopolization, etc)
And as I said, I trust a big pool of large stakeholders -> Yes
I trust 1-2 stakeholders -> No.
It is called single point of failure.
And I don't trust a single point of failure, if its a stakeholder or not.
It's not a point of failure in any regard. You know what those critiques are based on? Pure horse shit, for all. Like the article I linked showing that nothing changed if we remove both freedom and pumpkin's stake, so too do mining pools still don't take advantage in any way of their concentration of power to undermine the network by double spending or censoring transactions, and even if they did, it's no more centralized, it is concentrated power, and it does not matter if it's one person, or 10000 joining together, it's still decentralized as there is no single position of power over the system, which is what centralization is based on. The point of not trusting one stake holder with their stake but trusting many stakeholders is lost on you, to you, having more skin in the game should come with more costs and risks and less control.
I see there is no real point discussing with someone who calls the others person arguments "horseshit". Same kind of people who doubt man made climate change or think the earth is flat. What do I care about scientists, I can read a few blogs about the topic myself and I know things very well then.
These people who do distributed system research for many years, they know nothing.
Show me the proof of all this collusion of concentrated wealth if you claim that those critiques are valid. I showed you an article that simply removed both the stake of pumpkin and freedom and absolutely nothing had changed, and I've still to hear of any mining pools colluding to undermine the network, and as for the people who research distributed systems for years, exactly who and where and what are they researching that you seemingly try to inject as if it was even referenced let alone discussed? O yeah, because I called certain unfounded critiques as being formed of horse excrement that means there's no point to discussing fixing an imagined problem stemmed from those critiques based entirely on horse shit.
http://vukolic.com/iNetSec_2015.pdf For example talks about the issues of mining pools leading to centralization. Which got it mainly from here: https://www.infoq.com/articles/is-bitcoin-a-decentralized-currency/ which describe most mining pools as a threat and hope that more decentralized mining pools surge (Where you can apply the mining pool to big stakeholder issue 1:1 almost).
I can't find the paper atm which was talking about the monopoly problem.
http://www.coinfox.info/news/reviews/6417-proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake-merits-and-disadvantages
Does summarize it pretty well though.
If there is a single stakeholder which MAY define all witnesses and then almost do whatever he wants with the chain. Then this is a major risk for the security of the chain. And thus it is not very well decentralized. I don't know what it so difficult to understand with this.
Imagine, someone from another Blockchain doing this to bring down Steem to value his own Blockchain or Steem fork. At the moment this would be even "relatively cheap".
Usually, when the other person resorts to likening man made global warming to established science while ridiculing the other person's position on par with flat earth it's because they have no argument, no point to make. Case and point, if you could demonstrate that the problem exists, that one stakeholder controls the top 30/ top 20 witnesses it would go a long way to prove that, but you cannot, because there's no such thing, no such problem, and certainly no proof of any of that, but to reduce the validity of the critique as purely crap, I can provide not only the proof but the rhetoric to back it up, as I've said repeatedly, you do not trust those with the most stake to safeguard their investment but you will trust those with a lot less stake to do so, which makes no sense, well it makes sense if you see the large stakeholder as a threat to the system, but what that is based on is complete Hogwash, as there's no threat and all you have is contorting it into a point of failure as if those votes, those vests would undermine the network in any way, or could.