I think voting for a maximum of 10 witnesses would be appropriate.
30 makes almost no sense. 1 is too few.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think voting for a maximum of 10 witnesses would be appropriate.
30 makes almost no sense. 1 is too few.
Why not just do one vest = one vote and let accounts distribute their votes however they see fit?
If it is 1 vote 1 witness, you only need 20% of all SP to get 4/20 witnesses and paralyze the network. In this situation you can block all hardforks till you get your way.
Now you need 51% to do this which is at least a majority.
That is a good property. If a change is too contentious, it shouldn't occur. Everyone on the network agrees to the current protocol. But we shouldn't force changes that are against the will of a large portion of the network.
Tron seemed able to control a considerable number of witnesses with just the 20% (STINC stake). Also to need a majority to block a change is ridiculous. That means a change opposed by 49% of the network could be implemented.
Tron with the help of exchanges and proxy.token had 50% of witness voting SP. It doesn't matter if they only actually had 20% of all Steem. This just shows how we don't want to make things any easier to abuse.
Although in theory less than 50% of people should be allowed to block an undesirable change, in reality this will be abused. So it's important to consider the following:
Firstly, let's imagine they block changes just to make unrelated and unreasonable demands before supporting any changes. It happened on Steem when Justin started adding Proxy.tokens' demands for economic changes. Do we want this my way or the highway tactic to be easier?
Secondly, let's imagine they do something like when a needed change is urgent so it cannot be well debated.
Do you really want hostage situations to become easier where an urgently needed change is blocked to blackmail in an unrelated change?
Want to secure the Hive block chain against an immediate threat? Oops it looks like proxy.token wants downvotes removed before this can happen.
Want to introduce the long awaited SMTs? Oh looks like you will have to agree to make love to Jusin, or they will block it.
No thank you.
Human nature means it will definitely be abused. It was already abused. Lets not enable more proxy.token scenarios.
That doesn't solve the issue of a Malicious party threatening the governance of the network... What do makes sense to me is that one party is capable of voting for a non determinant number of witnesses... What non determinant means? Well for preventing a hardfork you need 4/20, then each account must not be able to vote more than 3 witnesses to prevent that in the scenario some urgent update on the code is necessary no party could hold the network at ransom as the Koreans did.
Also, this voting proportion make it more expensive to push 11 witnesses into top 20 spots (I was told that this is the number needed to run a softfork).
Yes, I picked 10 because it is a nice number, but anything between 4 and 16 makes an attack quite expensive.
I am not sure of the number but less than the 17 Witnesses needed for consensus.