Having twenty real witnesses all representing their own personal interests in the top twenty meant the chain was 'decentralized' and as secure as could be. The blockchain would continue to run flawlessly if one of those members wanted to quit or went loony in the head then decided to rob us blind with malicious code and an evil thought or two.
Having twenty bogus accounts controlled by one entity in the top twenty means the blockchain has a single point of failure and is no longer secure. I didn't need to be an armchair politician to know a centralized chain is absurd.
After 4 years of the STEEM social blockchain experiment, a theoretical limitation of the DPOS protocol has turned into a sucesfull attack.
A fork of STEEM blockchain escaping from Justin Sun wont avoid future attacks from other malevolent actors.
Im in my opinion a NEWSTEEM should run on an evolved protocol, that I defined as REDPOS
The current reputation was easily manipulated with paid votes and that could easily happen with your plan, and it wouldn't even be expensive.
@nonameslefttouse the implementation of a REDPOS protocol would indeed need a very well thought REP system (account age should be a parameter, of course). I am aware that the current REP on STEEM was programmed as a bandaid because @blocktrades explained that point, he is also working on a better REP system.
On the other hand, a simple hardfork using the same DPOS protocol is a very short term meassure. The need to evolve into a REDPOS surges because the DPOS flaws are already exposed. But REDPOS is just a philosophy, a guideline. The actual implementation requires good development.
I'm not focused on development, just focused on trying to explain why a STEEM hard-fork on the same DPOS philosophy is not a long term solution for a social blockchain.
There was only one chance for this chain to see a hostile takeover and now that's done. The cost would be so far out of reach for the next one that they wouldn't achieve anything by doing it. The main thing in my mind is cost. The expense of purchasing the top slots needs to be so far out of reach that it becomes pointless to even bother. Any changes will have to factor in 'cost' as the main deterrent. Even now, if Justin takes his stake and slowly backs away, selling as he goes, I don't think anyone else would try, because they'd have to buy from the market and that would only get more and more expensive as they go. DPoS is fine, when the cost to take over is extreme. Keep in mind though, I'm just a writer/artist/entertainer here. The technical stuff isn't my forte. I just have a basic understanding and nearly four years of observational experience. Business savvy and qualified to lead. That's about it.
It think DPoS suits Bitshares better, but BTS wasn't designed as a "social blockchain". STEEM as a social blockchain created human agreements that were not formally coded. (The ninjamined stake is not supoused to vote, it's just for chain development financing, exchanges are not supoused to vote).
Also it is evident that no 4 years old human community wants to be ruled by 0 experience fake "witnesses" (sockpuppet accounts of 1 entity).
So, nope, I don't agree DPoS is fine for a social blockchain. Needs to evolve.
I agree a few tweaks could lead to a more productive future.