The purpose of the network consensus mechanism is to be able to run in a way that is resistant to censorship and minimize the risks of attacks from either a minority or majority of participants. Network consensus is not about the ideal political representation. An approval based system (ie. one with more votes per stakeholder) is more resistant to potential disruption from malicious stakeholders than one based on a minimal number of votes.
There's no such thing as a malicious stakeholders in an anti fragile system, you're off with your logic.
If you wake up with 51% of all Hive Power tomorrow.
Right now: There is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from deciding all the Top20 witnesses alone. People will have to cope with it or fork away, the chain is captured.
If you had only 3 votes: You could vote in 3 Witnesses and life goes on like nothing happend because that is only 15% of the decision and production power.
I feel mildly insulted that I have to explain that here, because we both know it and you're probably just gas lighting me.
Let me guess, if somebody where to buy a big stake he'd make the price pump and it would take 30 days for the voting power to activate. Yes, I know. That is not what I'm talking about.
A 51% attack is not the only way to disrupt the network. It is the most damaging and widely understood attack, but not the only one that a witness or multiple witnesses can do. Other attacks could be, for example, to produce empty blocks thus damaging network performance, or to produce bloated, complex blocks thus increasing the cost of running a node for other witnesses.
Fewer votes per stakeholder reduces the threshold for a malicious actor or a group of malicious actors to be able to elect a minority of malicious witnesses, who could engage in attacks like mentioned above.
There is no malicious stakeholder in an anti-fragile system. And you don't need a 51% attack you just need an effective amount of stake, which is currently rather ~5-10%. How many of the Top20 witnesses are not voted for by Blocktrades: Zero.
At fist I thought you're joking, but it seems you don't. So let me put this straight. "Don't attack the network" has to be excluded from this list logically, because it's too vague. Those attacks, if cost effective, are mostly attacks on Apps directly or SPOCs in the nodes.
As soon as you fight back against what you call "malicious actor", you have made two mistakes already:
If everyone is equal and the system is trustless, than bad and good actions are both valid to the same degree. Code is Law, everyone is equal.
You don't fight back, you let em buy in and Judo move them out. You have to thrive and become stronger with opposition, not fight them.
Maybe tune into Community Token Talk from time to time. Dan is the best person to explain things like this. He's a decentralization wizard.
The purpose of the network consensus mechanism is to be able to run in a way that is resistant to censorship and minimize the risks of attacks from either a minority or majority of participants. Network consensus is not about the ideal political representation. An approval based system (ie. one with more votes per stakeholder) is more resistant to potential disruption from malicious stakeholders than one based on a minimal number of votes.
There's no such thing as a malicious stakeholders in an anti fragile system, you're off with your logic.
If you wake up with 51% of all Hive Power tomorrow.
Right now:
There is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from deciding all the Top20 witnesses alone. People will have to cope with it or fork away, the chain is captured.
If you had only 3 votes:
You could vote in 3 Witnesses and life goes on like nothing happend because that is only 15% of the decision and production power.
I feel mildly insulted that I have to explain that here, because we both know it and you're probably just gas lighting me.
Let me guess, if somebody where to buy a big stake he'd make the price pump and it would take 30 days for the voting power to activate. Yes, I know. That is not what I'm talking about.
Witnesses have these jobs:
A 51% attack is not the only way to disrupt the network. It is the most damaging and widely understood attack, but not the only one that a witness or multiple witnesses can do. Other attacks could be, for example, to produce empty blocks thus damaging network performance, or to produce bloated, complex blocks thus increasing the cost of running a node for other witnesses.
Fewer votes per stakeholder reduces the threshold for a malicious actor or a group of malicious actors to be able to elect a minority of malicious witnesses, who could engage in attacks like mentioned above.
There is no malicious stakeholder in an anti-fragile system. And you don't need a 51% attack you just need an effective amount of stake, which is currently rather ~5-10%. How many of the Top20 witnesses are not voted for by Blocktrades: Zero.
At fist I thought you're joking, but it seems you don't. So let me put this straight. "Don't attack the network" has to be excluded from this list logically, because it's too vague. Those attacks, if cost effective, are mostly attacks on Apps directly or SPOCs in the nodes.
As soon as you fight back against what you call "malicious actor", you have made two mistakes already:
Maybe tune into Community Token Talk from time to time. Dan is the best person to explain things like this. He's a decentralization wizard.
I don't even get the logic behind this, the system needs to penetrable and anti-fragile to not get captured from the inside.
We have some wonderful witnesses here on chain for sure, but let me tell you, even if I mostly do, not everyone does agree with them.