So basically youre saying that because you don't like how people would vote if their votes had any impact, their votes shouldnt have any impact. Thats fair enough, i guess. But the real argument youre making is one for centralization.
ANd its important to keep in mind that, regardless of the merits of centralization, you have a strong financial incentive to support an unbalanced system.
You can look at the price of steem over the past 30 days to see the real impact on blogging quality (and thus on the credibility of the platform)
Also, im not sure in what sense youre using quadratic weighting. I'm familiar with the quadratratic mean (aka root mean squared), which is a normalization method (the root of the sum of the squares), but im 98% certain steemit does not use this.
Voting weight is linear here, at least as far as ive observed. 1000SP has 10x the weight as 100SP, iiuc. am I mistaken here?
No you apparently entirely missed the point of why a vulnerability could cause some attacker to siphon away all the wealth.
I am not making that argument; the game theory is. There are no good design options and that is the least likely to be overrun by an attacker.
The white paper clearly says the reward is votes squared, which I also mentioned in the blog.
As opposed to a few dozen select authors doing the same in exchange for hyping the currency and its centralized control system?
Yeah, i get where you stand. ANd so does everyone reading a post like this.