There are tradeoffs when talking about DPoS, Naïve PoS, Slasher PoS, PoW. Sure you get some speed and consistency features with DPoS with the tradeoff of less security. It is much more nuanced than this and there are many unknown unknowns.
Stay tuned for a more in-depth post about DPoS. I'll probably get lots of flak so it is taking me a while to make sure I keep my opinions separate from reality.
What 'bad things' about Bitcoin?
Because DPoS is pretty bad as it is.
Very low transactions per second, energy inefficient, mining companies having way too much influence? what's so bad about DPoS?
Well the Tx/s needs to improve.
Energy inneficent - I would argue entropicly secure.
Mining companies have exactly as much power as they should.
DPoS is a tradeoff. Period.
It might not be a bad tradeoff in all cases, see steem. But for sound money, Bitcoin got it right with PoW.
That said, the world really only has a place for 1 maybe 2 PoW 'things'. PoW has very well studied concepts of finality.
Finality in DPoS is ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Kyle, can you elaborate or point me to something I can read about why DPoS is bad?
Well bad is clearly not the right word.
There are tradeoffs when talking about DPoS, Naïve PoS, Slasher PoS, PoW. Sure you get some speed and consistency features with DPoS with the tradeoff of less security. It is much more nuanced than this and there are many unknown unknowns.
Stay tuned for a more in-depth post about DPoS. I'll probably get lots of flak so it is taking me a while to make sure I keep my opinions separate from reality.
Sure, I would totally appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. It obviously seems like a different 'flavor' of decentralization.
I like different flavor. As long as you are aware of the tradeoffs, it is fine. Steem is doing just fine with DPoS.
Security of DPOS is stronger in practice. You only need to coerce a few mining company CEOs to change the course of Bitcoin.
Disagree.
If you think you can change Bitcoin with just a few big miners you are wrong.