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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.