Who Is To Blame?

in #steem8 months ago (edited)

DPoS by its design is more centralized than the other PoW blockchains, trading decentalization for speed and efficiency.

01.png

Doubling down on that centralization is the rule

One Stake = 30 Witness votes


This basically made the blockchain corporate governed. Especially in its first years. In the last years the decentralization increased with more than 100M STEEM being distributed, and a lot of sales by STINC.

Still this rule one stake = 30 votes remained the week spot that allowed this thing to happen even with 20% to 30% stake owned.

Don't blame the actors, blame the system!

If there was, one stake = one vote rule, scale it as much as you want to as many witnesses you want, what happen today wouldn't be possible.

Lesson learned, the hard way!


Blockchain Governance Models | Should Steem Governance Model Be Changed?


Sort:  

@dalz the problem that the steem blockchain is currently facing is not really caused by the actors on the platform but i believe it is the system itself that is faulty and the solution is to rebuild and develop a better system....

Posted via Steemleo

I never understood whybwe can vote for 30 when 20 is needed. Dividing it up would make sense. Also a weighted SPS as well.
Even considering thebidea of negative weight is worth consideration. Who do you think definitely shouldn't be a wtiness or SPS.

Indeed @dalz. You hit the nail on the head.

At the same time, it is a good idea to increase the number of Witnesses from 20 to, maybe 50 and have a super majority of 75%.

Posted via Steemleo

i agree with you,increasing the number of witnesses would also lead to higher speed and efficiency too...

Posted via Steemleo

If there was, one stake = one vote rule, scale it as much as you want to as many witnesses you want, what happen today wouldn't be possible.

Then voting becomes meaningless when people simply generate thousands and thousands of accounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

Sybil resistance is a property that these systems must incorporate, which is why voting must be stake-based.

Sybil attack
In a Sybil attack, the attacker subverts the reputation system of a network service by creating a large number of pseudonymous identities and uses them to gain a disproportionately large influence. It is named after the subject of the book Sybil, a case study of a woman diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. The name was suggested in or before 2002 by Brian Zill at Microsoft Research. The term pseudospoofing had previously been coined by L. Detweiler on the Cypherpunks mailing list and used in the literature on peer-to-peer systems for the same class of attacks prior to 2002, but this term did not gain as much influence as "Sybil attack".

It is still stake based .... but you cant vote more than once with your one unit of stake.

@dalz and that would have been a more interesting idea...

Posted via Steemleo

Agreed more witnesses and less votes but yeah lesson learned the hard way for sure. It just shows that its still a select few in charge and we only had the illusion of decentralisation because we play by the rules, as soon as we stood up we got shut down

Its not that there wasn't a certain level of decentralization. There is. Just not enough.
They went to a lot of trouble to do this.

Making Binance to power up 32M STEEM and vote is crazy.

Yes I agree! I think they also busy changing to 24 hour power down to give Binance back their stake as well as the other exchanges

I can’t believe the level of collusion here! Even if you’re not a steemian this just shows how Binance can misuse your funds!

Exactly. clear system design flaw. It took many years to get the chain to be a bit more decentralized which all have been destroyed in a single day. Still can't believe they actually did a hostile takeover of the entire steem blockchain.

Crazy right. Also including 3 exchanges to do this!

One stake = One vote PERIOD

Thanks again.

In general that is my opinion as well. It will bring more decentralization, but also we need to consider a less efficient system as well :)

Because as mentioned in the previous post decentralization and efficiency/speed are oposit.

But this is something we need to accept ... more freedom to the users but moving slowly as well.

Pro and cons always :)

 8 months ago Reveal Comment