I am not trying to annoy you, I apologize if I did. When I have the time I will make a post about this (including the math behind it). Thank you for taking the time to respond.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am not trying to annoy you, I apologize if I did. When I have the time I will make a post about this (including the math behind it). Thank you for taking the time to respond.
You've been moving the goal post along the way. Your initial claim that the amount of votes given right now would matter is still not true.
#20 has 60M Hive voting for him. That's twice of what's locked up on binance. There is no current threat that requires piling votes there, it only reinforces the results we had before which were mostly decided by a few big stakeholders as you correctly mentioned.
So what is the effect of switching a vote exactly?
Removing a vote from a top witness: doesn't influence anything at all, as long as it doesn't make it drop out and someone else get in
Adding a vote to a top witness: doesn't change anything except making it harder for backups to replace them
Removing a vote from a backup witness: lowers the rewards for that one, raises the rewards for all other backups
Adding a vote to a backup witness: raises the rewards for that one, lowers the rewards for all other backups
If you use more votes, you actually lower the influence you have on the individual witnesses you vote for. So if you really only want to support a few and fill it up with others, you actually lower your support for the important ones. And in the situation where an attack isn't to be expected it doesn't make sense either. One could spread them at the top of the top to secure their position when necessary, but during times like this where we're reasonably safe that just reinforces decisions by other big stakeholders as said a few times by now.
--
Regarding the number of votes and stuff, @raycoms did an analysis recently and I've seen numbers for other models too. Nothing would really improve the situation, as anything goes in two directions - if it's easier for the community to prevent a supermajority, a big stakeholder can also block hardforks easier. In the end stake is defining and the only real security measure is a good distribution so buying amounts big enough to be a threat is unreasonably expensive.
I agree with you on the fact that we need to re-align the witness votes and that currently we do not have any probable threats (maybe I should have started with that).
I don't disagree. For now let's leave it at that and thank you again.