I would like to know why single account still have 30 votes when there's 20 block producers :D This allows anyone to take over the network (like what happened with Steem) which isn't decentralized at all, every major DPOS chain has 1 vote per account for a reason.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If we only had 20 the witnesses outside the top 20 would have an even harder time getting votes.
Until folks only vote the top 20 in attack scenarios and spread their votes outside the top 20-30 routinely we should probably keep them, or the witness list could shrink to just the top few.
We should have 1 vote :) this is how it works in every major chain, Hive is outside top 100 market cap and for a reason :/
Lol, yeah, because too many dumpers are voted rewards.
IF people stopped selling today we would be at our all time high, but instead the largest proportion of rewards get dumped to the market and sucked up by whales to keep the price out of the dumpster fire thereby increasing centralization.
Maybe so, or maybe 31 primary witnesses.
That's a wrong approach. Actually the idea is the other way around - unlimited number of witnesses that are good for the job. One should vote for those who they trust. As a result, on top we have those who are entrusted by most.
Still, it allows single entity to control all block producers.
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.