Exactly, one account with high stake can select all block producers and take control over entire network. To do the same with 1 vote system, the attacker would need to buy 20x more stake.
With the current model it is very easy for a small group of people to control the entire network and I think this is one of the main reasons why big investors ignore Hive - soon or later the people in power will have to decide if they want to continue milking the network or make it something more sustainable.
No, not true, please do the actual math, and/or try with simulations.
There's no real advantage in your idea, it'd be more risky (network resilience) and harder for stakeholders to ensure that their assets are protected by trustworthy witnesses.
OK, here's the simulation:
Current model: I've got 90mln HP - I choose all block producers, I control the whole network.
1 Vote: I've got 90mln HP - I choose one block producer, I don't control the network.
There's a reason why cardano, polkadot, polygon and many other top chains have 1 vote - unless they are all wrong?
Yes and I did.
Again: number of votes are irrelevant.
To do the same with 1 vote system, the attacker would need to buy 20x more stake.
Are you aware that you can't have 20x more stake than a half of the total? :-) No, that's not the solution, just a tip that your math is wrong.
It's a pointless discussion because you try to show a flaw, which is actually a property (% shares gives % of control). And yes, it's pretty much same with Cardano, etc.
No, number of entities (accounts) are irrelevant in DPoS, stake matters, above could be true for >50% of the stake.
Exactly, one account with high stake can select all block producers and take control over entire network. To do the same with 1 vote system, the attacker would need to buy 20x more stake.
With the current model it is very easy for a small group of people to control the entire network and I think this is one of the main reasons why big investors ignore Hive - soon or later the people in power will have to decide if they want to continue milking the network or make it something more sustainable.
No, not true, please do the actual math, and/or try with simulations.
There's no real advantage in your idea, it'd be more risky (network resilience) and harder for stakeholders to ensure that their assets are protected by trustworthy witnesses.
OK, here's the simulation:
Current model: I've got 90mln HP - I choose all block producers, I control the whole network.
1 Vote: I've got 90mln HP - I choose one block producer, I don't control the network.
There's a reason why cardano, polkadot, polygon and many other top chains have 1 vote - unless they are all wrong?
None of them are using DPoS. 51 attack doesn't care about the number of votes.
I don't know if they are wrong, but you certainly are.
Can you point an error in my simulation?
Yes and I did.
Again: number of votes are irrelevant.
Are you aware that you can't have 20x more stake than a half of the total? :-) No, that's not the solution, just a tip that your math is wrong.
It's a pointless discussion because you try to show a flaw, which is actually a property (% shares gives % of control). And yes, it's pretty much same with Cardano, etc.