If you're talking about this blockchain, it doesn't achieve what I'm referring to above. But yes, it can be improved significantly even if it remains a siloed blockchain at the mercy of a few witnesses.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The mercy of few witnesses is probably why Jack wouldn't consider it (there may also be account scaling issues and then some probably) and instead is now investing in a research project.
But the beauty of open source is that anyone can fork the code, even create a new genesis block, and adapt the code to their desires before launching the platform.
Additionally, governance is flexible. As we have seen with bidbots. Stake is a weakness but stake (I mean money) also centralizes even Bitcoin. Only few, very few, specific mining pool operators are needed to collude and Bitcoin's rules can change over night.
Interestingly enough, because of the "stupid inflation" Steem/Hive is one of the healthiest DPOS models when it comes to collusion resilience. On EOS only the block producers grow. And they grow constantly, weakening collusion resistance every further day.
Here we still have 65% "organic" distribution, as well as interest. Eventually the stake will be more distributed.
As Patrick points out below, the Bitcoin mining pool "exploit" has been vastly overblown by DPoS fanboys. It's a risk, yes, work is ongoing to mitigate it - but in any case, it's far, far more of an existential threat with DPoS. I don't consider DPoS a decentralized consensus mechanism at all.
I do agree that Hive as it currently stands is one of the least weak DPoS networks, though. (Definitely not Steem though)
Either way, creating an open protocol for social media is an entirely different can of worms.
Creating the open protocol is not so big an issue btw. This platforms stores custom_json, which is pretty much very open.
I had typed a much longer reply, mentioning things like certain web2.0 protocols and so, but I think it would be irrelevant but I fear the dislike you've grown for this type of governance prevents you from still seeing the possible options.
I'm not saying this platform is the all compassing endgame, I'm not a DPOS fan boy either, and I'm happy for Bluesky. But all that doesn't take away that this platform has some truly awesome features and could have gotten much further with different past managers.
Governance? Not written in stone. Nothing prevents you/us from campaigning tomorrow for only 3 votes/account. Or 1SP->1vote.
Don't get stuck in those limitations. If we do we may as well pack in now. No startup founders would have continued if they knew about the future HR and boardroom games they would encounter.
On the other hand, one need not get stuck with current system.
I don't know that I would throw Bitcoin under the bus for the potential of mining pool operator abuse. If pools colluded to make a change then the community would just leave the mining pool immediately to a pool that supported the correct rule set. This would result in two chains momentarily but the community would quickly overtake the attackers hashing rate and resume blocks correctly leaving the fork to be worthless.
This isn't to say this isn't a potential attack vector to cause serious disruptions. That's why the work being put in on BetterHash and Stratum V2 are so important. Once we have these technologies developed then this attack vector will go to 0 and individual miners will have better control over their hashing power.
I don't disagree with that. But the attack vector exists, but yes I should probably have emphasized that the mining community is much more mature in response in general.