I don't believe this will be the next step, but I think it's a high priority for maintaining the integrity of DPoS ideals of decentralization. I would be in favor of 3 votes instead of 8, but 8 may be needed at first to get everyone in agreement. This is a hole in our governance, and the fears that arose with Justin to begin with could have been squashed with this one single feature. I will be lobbying hard to make this happen, I hope everyone joins me.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Please Ron help us to keep this on the discussion docket! Essential concept to fix the root!
I'm going to make it a priority and do my part.
Thanks very much! Would it be a good idea to formally add this to SPS? Not for the immediate short-term change but for the broader discussion about finding the best solution for the future?
Also, what is your favourite communication channel? We have chatted on Discord but you have sometimes not been able to DM. steem.chat?
The 3-vote idea has been suggested by others. The logic being that not only can no one party push through a hardfork but also that nobody can single-handedly block one.
There are merits to that.
Anything else between 3 and 8 are just random, but those two values both have a logic to them.
Thanks again.
Discord is usually best, but the past few days have been crazy. I'm currently editing video (on linux no less), rewatching and transcribing timestamps to make the long shows worth watching, and engaging in the info war on discord/twitter.
I'm still undecided if SPS is the way to go, I really don't think it will be needed, but it's good to keep in mind as an option.
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):
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.
Have you guys talked about the 1 SP - 1 vote idea?
You beat me to it.
This is also something worth considering, but it comes down to:
-ease of implementation
-community support
-effectiveness of accomplishing the goal
I'm not a dev, so I can't speak for the first one, for the second one the community seems split or apathetic, and the third point should be a good debate I'm looking forward to.
We should run some simulations to determine what happens in each case based on major voter preference now.
If you have those resources and skills, go right for it.
what would self votes look like for witnesses? all witnesses just vote themselves with the one (by convention rather than rule) or banned from the self vote?