I only now saw this:
I think.... that's not the case! Because a limited amount of "voting slots" (either used positive / negative exist, this means "disapproving" witness X is done at the expense of "approving" witness Y. And as a consequence, when you decide to "flag" a witness, that's at the expense to support another one...
I thought it was part of the quote from me, and didn't read it the first time.
Yes, I agree flagging is at the expense of approving another witness, but after watching the witness channels for quite some time, I'm pretty sure there are some who would rather flag than approve. Then, often comes retaliation. And so we have a war.
When we add the possibility to punish, we always have to think about retaliation. And about what that means.
I don't know, for me, it seems in this paradigm consensus can be way more difficult to obtain even on trivial things.
The top20 stays the top20, no? Who is in the top20 could change, but the consensus would still be decided by the resulting top20.
I don't think this bashing will not do anyone any good. But if people think it's a good idea...
Would it be bashing, though?
It's not unlimited bashing, simply because the number of slots is limited. And unlike post flagging, your witness vote doesnt "recharge" and can't be used time after time...
That is true! Well, we'll have to see. I agree we need something to incentivize some sort of dynamics in the witness ranks, even in Top 20 when they are underperforming.