RE: In Defense of Consortium Blockchains

please explain how the whales were able to destroy your rewards?

On some controversial blogs I wrote, I had dozens or hundred+ votes with some rewards and then one or two whales come in and flag my post because they don’t agree with what I have to say and thus all my rewards were erased to $0. The downvoting or flagging feature should be for content-free posts or spamming. If many readers (not all) like my post, it is growing an audience thus helping Steem grow, then it is stupid to penalize me. A blog site can’t be a place where every group agrees with every other group. Diversity of audiences has to be allowed. Spreading a totalitarian mayonnaise on diversity is the antithesis of resiliency, decentralization, scaling, and success.

and what that has to do with POS vs POS? If anything it seems like a problem with Steem, an application, not POS, a consensus protocol.

You’re not connecting the dots. But I understand block chain technology + game theory is complex. I live and breathe this stuff so I am exposed to many bits of information that you haven’t likely contemplated.

POS suffers from the problem that it can’t distribute tokens. So the voting scheme was designed for Steem as a way to overcome that inherent weakness. But as I have pointed out, the voting scheme can never be objective or fair or a meritocracy. It will always devolve into a whale monopoly on tokens and thus also a monopoly on the consensus.

With EOS, they decided to sell the tokens over a year period to simulate the costs of spending on mining. But unfortunately in my analysis thus far that renders the “useless tokens” to be investment securities, but note IANAL. Also some evidence (also here and here) has been presented that perhaps the “useless” EOS token sale is being gamed in various ways.

Since I am not planning any $2 billion pre-functional “useless token” sale money grab, nobody needs to trust me for anything. The entire point of decentralized ledgers is they should be trustless and permissionless, but your leader seems to not think so, since DPoS is permissioned and requires trusting the whales.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/23/wrongful-conviction-no-surprise-to-kansas-black-community.html

WICHITA, Kan. – Rose McIntyre says she wonders whether her refusal to grant regular sexual favors to a white detective prompted him to retaliate against her black son, who spent 23 years in a Kansas prison for a double murder he didn't commit.

Rose McIntyre recounted in her affidavit that Golubski coerced her into a sexual act in his office in the late 1980s and then harassed her for weeks, often calling her two or three times a day, before she moved and changed her phone number.

"He had total power, and I was terrified that he would try to force me again to provide sexual favors," she said in the affidavit. "I also knew that there was no one I could complain to, as Golubski was known to be very powerful in the community and in the police department."

Golubski was so involved with black female prostitutes and drug addicts that he fathered children with some of them, according to an affidavit from retired police officer Ruby Ellington, a 25-year Kansas City police department employee.

The above is an example why trusting anyone or group with authority is dangerous.