Draw a map of points that need to be corrupted to compromise a network and/or cause harm and I assure you ETH has fewer points of corruption. Namely, I would corrupt the operators of the two largest pools and get a 51% attack.
ETH is delegated proof of work with 7 meaningfully elected positions with 2 controlling 51%
ETH recommends 12 confirmations, in a window of 12 blocks 7 will be produced by 2 people and the other 5 will be produced by 5 people for an average of 7 unique individuals confirming a transaction.
The economics of block production on ETH falls off dramatically once the number of blocks produced per day falls below the cost of operating a node. EOS and STEEM both have the same trail off on the long-tail which means that economically speaking, the total number of block producers will be the same in both systems. The difference is that DPOS makes sure the top 21 are all unique and equally weighted in each confirmation window (45 seconds) vs unequally weighted in each ETH confirmation window (3 minutes).
So do the math, their claims of decentralization and/or centralization are entirely bogus and unfounded.
The fact remains though that the narrower the points you place trust/confirmations in the chain the more chance there is of corruption or coercion. In your example you point to the 'operators' of said two pools while ignoring the makeup of said pools which could number in the thousands instead of the minimal numbers which would exist with DPOS, the math might be enticing but there is no way around the actual numbers which will confirm the overall chain history. You also ignore the ability of Ethereum transactions to increase with increased demand on the network as well.
No one I have asked the question of about EOS only existing on the Ethereum network as it exists now has answered that question either.
I don't want to fight with you people, I am one of you if you hadn't noticed . I have a couple of grand $AU invested already, but I do think that I have some legitimate questions to ask at least.
Why is EOS totally dependent on Ethereum to exist right now for a start ?
EOS doesn't exist on Ethereum. It is being developed. The Ethereum based tokens just represent EOS tokens when they become available, at which point they'll be exchanged for actual EOS tokens.
I don't think EOS is dependent on Ethereum. They could probably just as easily have released the tokens on Bitshares.
This is exactly the point @southerncross is trying to make: Why didn't they?
Thank you. I am still curious as to the answer, since it would seem to also promote BTS. However, perhaps the most likely one is "it would have raised less money" because Eth use > BTS use atm.
Because exchanges are more familiar with trading eth tokens, and trade is important for distribution to be closer to PoW by controlling price by making it too expensive to buy all coins. All done with goal of security later.
Looks like both reasons make sense.
Again, who are the "make up of said pools"? If you're talking about miners, the equivalent in DPOS is stakeholders (miners delegate their PoW vote, stakeholders delegate their stake vote). In both comparisons DPOS works out better. There is far higher stakeholder participation in Steem for example than the percentage of Bitcoin or Ethereum miners who contribute PoW. But neither miners nor stakeholders are actually involved in block production.
EOS doesn't exist now by choice. It could be started immediately using Graphene and have every change hard forked in, but that makes development slower so EOS will be matured somewhat prior to launch after the tokens on Ethereum have been frozen.
Great discussion and question. You seem to know a fair bit about EOS. If you come up with an answer, I hope you'll post about it.
Fenbushi invested in EOS with a reason I guess?