Damn that's a tight race for that 20 spot. Could probably sit here all day messing with people with my votes. Now you're in, now you're not, now you're in, now you're not.
But I won't. And I already voted for deathwing.
Damn that's a tight race for that 20 spot. Could probably sit here all day messing with people with my votes. Now you're in, now you're not, now you're in, now you're not.
But I won't. And I already voted for deathwing.
Just do the old kingscrown thing, unvote them and in dm ask for their autovote to get it back. 👍
There once was a witness that downvoted me the moment I unvoted LOL! But that's between me and him.
Classic. Don't forget those curation projects voting up already well rewarded authors in hopes of a witness vote + with other people's trails. @edicted knows what I'm talking about.
People will always look for an edge. Lacking integrity always comes around to bite them in the ass though. Universal law. Can't be broken.
Uh, what?
What are you talking about?
curation trails... upvoting authors... in exchange for governance votes... with other people's trails.
I seriously don't get it.
How do you upvote a witness with someone else's stake without a proxy?
Oh wait there was that one witness who was running around doing that shit.
Lawls. Took me long enough. Look how far down the ranks he is now. kek.
My memory is such shit half the time.
I've actually thought about this being a permissionless way to virtually increase the number of consensus witnesses. At least distribute the block rewards out to more than 20 witnesses. Requires a lot of stake and a bot to pull it off though.
That would create a new tier that gets paid less than top 20 but more than lower rankings. But an unstable tier. Chain still runs though regardless. That's funny in a way. Could have the entire top twenty alternating daily. Would take a bit of centralized thinking to pull it off though and I don't think too many would be fans.
I think the number of consensus witnesses should be determined by vote.
+1 / +0 / -1 option every month.
Static 20 seems incorrect.
Unfortunately the people in charge of the code are the witnesses,
and therefore they have negative financial incentive to allow more than 20.
Also there are way bigger priorities in play than tweeking consensus.
In theory fewer positions leads to those holding those positions or vying for them doing more work; being more productive. So there's that, too. 100 positions could lead to 50 slackers vying for a free lunch. That competition element brings out the best.
Yes, but also in theory a lot of the witnesses are scrappy as hell and can make a tiny bit of money go a long long way. Paying 40 witnesses half as much could lead to massive gains for the network in addition to providing more decentralized consensus. It could be a win/win and we have no idea because we didn't try.
Also is the fact that token price will not increase linearly with server costs. Hive itself could go x100 but the servers only cost two or three times as much: meaning we are wasting money by centralizing our funds more than we should be.
It's quite clear that a lot of these governance issues should be voted on rather than statically set in stone. But if we have to prototype it on a token built on Hive before Hive realizes it has value, so be it.
I do not disagree. Also experiencing déjà vu; the conversations are nothing new.
They are not.
Although the price of Hive and the direction of this network have changed a bit.
Next few years gonna be very interesting.