At first I was a proponent of reducing the number of witness votes, but after more deliberation I think it will actually have the opposite effect, making decentralization harder and centralization easier.
Consider the following example scenario (similar to what we have with the current TRON situation):
- The community collectively has 150M SP
- A single entity has 150M SP
Now, if the 30 witness votes are reduced to let's say 10, then the single entity has to divide its SP in half and vote in 10 witnesses with each half, so each of the single-entity-supported witnesses will have 75M SP.
The community will have to do the same. It will have to split in half - half the community would have to vote for 10 witnesses and the other half for 10 more. But the community is at a disadvantage because it is decentralized, so coordinating to do this is slower and more difficult. There will be confusion as to who votes for which batch of 10 witnesses, and exactly how to spread the SP in half. It will be very difficult to coordinate that.
So I think reducing the number of witness votes will make it easier for a single, centralized entity to take over the chain.
Some people may say then that we should reduce the number of consensus witnesses, but I think this is problematic because if any single entity wanted to buy off, hack, lead a smear campaign against or otherwise remove the witnesses as an obstacle to its takeover, then the smaller the number of consensus witnesses, the easier for the entity.
Does this make sense? Or do you see it differently?
I think 10 comes with the same pitfalls as 30, which is why I would propose 3, or maybe even 8 as Rycharde outlined. 3 would protect against blocking HFs, 8 would protect against pushing through HFs.
Well that only seems to make it worse. If everyone has 3 votes, then the community has to distribute its votes into 7 equal groups in order to overcome any takeover attempt by a single entity. More coordination and difficulty for the decentralized community. You don't see how it's only making things worse?
That's the point. No single entity can control anything, and the governance is more decentralized. I need to run the numbers, since things would change quite drastically, but it would seem from a cursory glance that this could be a good first step in making sure it's a the community that ultimately decides, not one person or organization.