This is not intended to attack current witnesses or developer team, but please consider it as a constructive criticism. Here, I identified two weaknesses of Hive blockchain that are inherited from previous Steem blockchain.
Image by Pixabay
1. Limited number of consensus witnesses.
This weakness is part of Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism. By limiting the number of consensus witnesses, will cause the blockchain to be vulnerable to (stake-weighted) sybil attack. This has actually happened on Steem blockchain. A single large stake holder dominated the consensus witnesses and hard forked the blockchain to seize assets of some accounts.
The idea is to get rid of this limitation and make the number of consensus witnesses unlimited. Then, the degree of "consensus power" will be determined by the approval number of the community to the witness. Thus, just like before the most approved witnesses would have the most influences on the governance of blockchain. But to dominate the consensus witnesses, will need more efforts because the number of witnesses is now unlimited.
2. Downvote with no cost and no reason.
This is a feature of Hive (was Steem). Currently, Hive users have downvote mana separated from upvote mana. It means, everyone can downvote without worrying their upvote mana decreases. In other words, everyone can downvote with no cost at all. Even worse, downvoting also requires no reason to be given.
Because downvoting means penalizing, one should not downvote without reason. Every downvote should be accompanied by its reason clearly and responsibly. Moreover, downvote should "cost" something from user. For example, downvote mana could be merged to upvote mana. Thus, a user who downvotes will also decrease his upvote mana. This way, users will be careful when doing downvote.
I think, if we improve on these two points, Hive will be more attractive to broader internet users.
Vote for us to be a witness - every vote counts.
- Go to page Witness Voting.
- Scroll down to the bottom.
- Input "puncakbukit" in the textbox below.
- Click VOTE button.
- We will follow you… ;-)
- My Witness Update
See also:
- Hive Quran ver 1.0: Search Al-Quran On Hive
- Ever Wonder What Is Your Post's Ranking? New Service: "@puncakbukit guess"
- Bergabung Di Jejak Kurasi Kami | キュレーショントレイルに参加しよう | Join Our Curation Trail
- Pi Network - Crypto Pertama Yang Dapat Ditambang Di Ponsel
- Piネットワーク — スマートフォンでマイニングできる最初の暗号通貨
- Seri Steemit Puncak Bukit
Down voting system does need to change. It is already a two step process to down vote, adding in a set of check boxes next to the reasons to down vote would be a simple solution, and then an auto comment added that @me down voted @you because of 'the reason for down vote selection'. What this would do is truly allow the community to decide if the down vote was justified. The other benefit is there would be no more blind down votes, no inability to down vote a serial down voter back. A comment was auto left by them that can then be down voted back.
The other thing I would like to see to fix the down vote is that when the down vote is for reward disagreement then the full force of the down vote go against the highest post rewarder and not against the post creator, the post creator has no control over who votes for nor how much they vote for their post, so their reputation should not be harmed. If three people or more down vote the post for excessive rewards then the top reward issuer should receive no curation at all from that post payout.
Yes.. You have very good idea.. Hope developer team could implement this..
I would prefer(at least for a quicker solution) the need to make a minimal 127 character reply to the downvoted post so in order to be able to downvote. It doesn't need to completely remove the "separate mana" for downvote, but it would obligate the downvoter to make a statement before casting the downvote, even it is pasted auto-text or completely gibberish of random characters.
That way the community could at least have access to the downvoter's reasons to do so and, if it's the case, counter it with their own upvotes.
I would prefer that also, that in order to down vote you must state a reason. For some reason though people do not want to have a mandatory comment of any kind. They always point out a comment is not need to up vote so why one to down vote. They do not see the difference in an up vote being a positive action, and a down vote as being a negative action. No society I know of has ever required justification for an individuals positive actions, only their negative actions. The people that do not want a comment or the ability to give the down voter themselves a down vote are the one that think down votes are a positive action. They are not the are a negative action and a control action.
I would also suggest increasing witness voting participation by enabling staking inflation to be earned only by accounts who vote for x number of witnesses, thereby being rewarded by inflation interest for helping secure the chain.
It seems to me this will create weird behaviors - people voting for witnesses for the reward rather than voting because they have looked into witnesses, understood the governance system and made a decision based on the information they gathered.
Yes, there are two choices I think.. low participation with highly informed decision.. or high participation based on reward..
Agreed.. this will surely increase user participation on approving witnesses..
We forked out paying for downvotes because the downvoters were being taxed for downvoting but the farmers were not.
Free downvotes is why there are still folks here.
Otherwise we would be whaleshares, or bearshares.
I got nothing against spreading out the consensus numbers.
Yes, spreading out the consensus numbers may help Hive blockchain avoiding attack such as happened in Steem blockchain recently.
I've always thought a reason should be required when handing out a downvote. I also think that if it cost someone to downvote a post, people wouldn't waste their power on downvoting spam which would end up making more users see spam.
Agreed, downvote should be accompanied with a reason.