Worker proposals are a very interesting and also important thing. But there is somewhat of an chicken and egg problem. We would have needed such a thing in place at the mainnet launch to build, wallets, network monitors, and referendum dapps. But now this basic infrastructure is already in place, moreover the WPS requires these structures.
And then the - and here i d agree dan - risk of such a system being played is very high, just look at the bp voting. What this blockchain needs most urgently is a proper constitution, and indeed with a v2 constitution i wouldnt want to have a wps, because this would get drained to the last satoshi....
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Here is a question. If you dont believe we can have a trustworthy vote for WPS, then have you also lost faith in a trustworthy DPOS? This seems to be the implication. Unless Dan is willing to admit DPOS failure, I am not following this argument against WPS.
I feel without a few basic set of rules, followed by bps and their voters, there is a realistic danger for this.
In addition producing blocks is a pretty straight forward task, well defined and measurable, and the performance of a bp is something relatively stable. On the other hand there is no clear idea what a wps might comprise, so with the necessary backing you could sell your pointless creatures.game to the fund. In particular with this open scope tons of proposals would compete and really boost voter apathy...
I agree that measuring WPS projects will be a challenge.