I am begging to wonder why witness accounts are limited to the to 20? It would be way harder to corrupt if it was 200 or 2000!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am begging to wonder why witness accounts are limited to the to 20? It would be way harder to corrupt if it was 200 or 2000!
The more witnesses the more hive generated, and that's not a good idea in terms of price in my opinion
No, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any more hive generated. How come you believe that?
A blockchain is only as secure as the rewards given to the block producers to secure it. If the reward is not high enough, quality people go elsewhere and the security of the network drops. I'm not convinced increasing the number solves any problems because the amount available to reward them is the same (unless you increase that amount which would probably take away rewards from authors and curators) so each witness would earn less. The problem was a sybil attack where one stake holder can convince exchanges via lies to control the whole chain with sock puppets. It wasn't about the number of individuals because one individual controlled all of them.
That's what I was referring to. Making the number of consensus witnesses higher does not directly cause the witness portion of the mint pool (I just made that term up, I'm sure there's a proper word for it...) to increase.
Not really. The consensus witnesses would earn less, but assuming only the consensus witness number to change, the witness rewards would only be distributed "better" among all the witnesses. While increasing the number of consensus witnesses would probably add a little more decentrality at the cost of a little harder organisation when hardforking etc. I don't think that the major problem lies there. I think that the big problem is that a single account can vote enough witnesses to reach consensus all by itself. I would much rather see the number of witness votes limited to < Consensus threshold. While that would enable a smaller part of the stake to block any hardfork, I think that's okay. For example the US constitution can also only be changed if 2/3 agree on it, and just like that in Austria as well. It's not uncommon to have a minority able to block major changes to the fundamentals of a system.
I guess it depends on if backups run the same infrastructure as consensus witnesses. Running a full node, for example, is expensive and few do it. Maybe the any_x path of funding that via proposal is the right way to go so that more consensus witnesses makes sense. I wonder also if moving away from approval voting to something else (some argue one token, one vote, some argue quadratic voting, etc) would be better.