In such "attack scenarios", those participants would need to collude to create what is effectively a byzantine fault.
In this DPoS case, the participants need not collude or "attack" at all, they can each adhere honestly to the rules of the system and yet still collectively monopolize it. Of course, if they did collude, they could perform "attacks" like that as well.
Just trying to illustrate the differences here.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, I agree with that too. But the end result may be the same, and it is a very mild sort of 'fault'. From the point of view of users who aren't trying to stake, everything would be fine (in fact possibly better since the dominant stakeholders may have better infrastructure and not have the entire network held back for the benefit of the smallest).