Because I don't use other social media, I am unable to enter this (or any other) competition you run. Others do, so thank you for promoting our community by encouraging creators to put out content that makes a good impression.
Free speech isn't just a luxury. It is as necessary as air, water, and food for survival. It is easy to grasp that preventing people from understanding what helps them or hurts them causes them to fail to do the former more often, and to do the latter more often. When existential matters are at hand, it's a matter of life and death.
There are very few ways a blockchain can improve the lives of it's users that matter more than censorship resistance, particularly as other social media platforms increasingly censor their users and misinform them with propaganda. Hive became necessary when Sun Yuchen, an agent of the CCP that is the most flagrant censor and source of insipid propaganda in the world, gained the ability to govern Steem at will.
Steem is today completely censored at his sole option, presumably dictated by the Chinese Communist Party.
To me, Hive is proof that truth and facts are core features of freedom, and that oppressive tyranny will destroy our lives if we don't keep them. It is utterly necessary that Hive resist the ability of stake to weigh excessively on governance if it is to continue to resist censorship, and it is a matter of life and death today, with martial law being imposed on every corner of the world: Hive may be our best chance to survive pandemic, totalitarian despotism, and financial collapse ongoing today.
Thanks!
Really?
https://hive.blog/investor/@friendlystranger/19-days-ago-i-was-asked-to-remove-my-votes-from-justin-s-sockpuppets-accounts-which-i-did-17-days-later-you-removed-me-from-hive
I responded to that post there. While you may agree with me that even now the distribution of Hive results in enough centralization to create a hegemony of oligarchs who possess the majority of stake in Hive, you may not agree that oligarchy is preferable to the simple autarchy Steem has become.
I remain convinced Hive remains over-centralized due to the dramatically unequal distribution of stake, and find the hegemony of a financial oligarchy unsatisfactory, as well as almost certain to be temporary due to the inevitable growth of monopolies in inadequately regulated capital systems, which Hive certainly is.
Thanks!
Your last sentence is awesome! I think we need a spoonful of centralization to keep the tyranny of the majority in check.
I can't see how DPoS can be expected to avoid some centralization due to differences in influences differences in stake effect. I am unaware of anyone actually proposing 1a1v, which would leave owners of large numbers of socks in control of Hive, or 1 user 1 vote, which I don't think anyone knows how to implement anyway.
I have proposed 1t1v, or applying VP to HP used to vote for witnesses such that voting depletes VP 100% and it does not recharge at all, in order to limit the 30x multiplication in the weight of witness votes from accounts with more HP, and make all tokens held by stakeholders equally influential on governance.
However, that alone cannot secure Hive from being attacked by the same mechanism that centralized governance of Steem in the total control of one person, and more needs to be done to prevent Sybil attacks from that vector.
That's an interested idea with reducing vp to vote witnesses.
I feel it could lead to more centralization.
I think allowing people to vote for between 7 and 15 witnesses makes the most sense. Going to low makes it too easy for a group to block all changes in order to het their ideas passed. Another idea is to fix witness payment to hbd to give them a more certain income. Extra funding stuff or increased support when necessary can come from dao.
I will show the math of 1t1v.
If you have 1M Hive, and I have 100 Hive, you'd expect our influence on governance to differ by 999,900 Hive. If we each had one vote, that is how it would be. However we have 30 votes. So, you vote 30x and exert 30M Hive influence on governance, while I vote 30x and exert 3000 Hive influence on governance.
The difference between our stake is 999,900 Hive. The difference between our influence on governance under the current system is 29,997,000 Hive.
Given the above discussion of stake and influence on governance, I am unable to understand how making each token only able to vote once for governance could lead to centralization more than multiplying each 30x to make the tokens held by substantial stakeholders worth 30x more than tokens held by equals.
Can you explain please?
My pleasure =p
Currently one army (person group whatever) needs >50% of all hp to attack the Hive network. Thet will vote top 17~30 witnesses. There is nothing that can be done.
To elect 4 to stop a hardfork, an army also needs > 50%. Alternatively they could stop a necessary hardfork until they 'negotiate'. This is also called extortion (proxy.token helped justin do it).
If we have 1t1v, >85% ensures 17 top 20 witnesses and a certain hard fork. Its safer.
However >20% ensures 4 top 20 witnesses and blocking a hardfork until the extortion is paid. Its now 2.5× easier to do an extortion attack and well within the means of potential alliances.
Sure doing nothing or extortion is less severe than a rogue hardfork, but they could also wait until they find a critical exploit that desperately needs patching before acting. We could experience this before and after every hardfork.
We could change the amount of consensus witnesses from 17/20 to 11~12/20 to address this issue. Or require 51~70/100. In anycase the entire equation needs to be rebalanced if the vote weights change to prevent a blockage attack.
I appreciate the substantive reply. I don't agree that blocking a HF is centralization of governance, however.
What I do agree on is that it appears that using stake alone to influence governance seems to be impossible to secure against both vectors for attack. There's far too many financial assets available to known censors for any mechanism based on financial assets alone to prevent censors from imposing greater stake on Hive.
I have become convinced that those that are advocating adding rep, or some other metric, to stake to effect governance are on the right track. I'd very much like to hear more discussion of means of preventing stake alone from being able to effect governance, because with that system in place, all that prevents those better funded censors from undertaking to destroy Hive as Steem has now been is the effort to do so.
Thanks!
Epic. I did not realize that steem was actually taken over by the CCP. We must be on the right path.
I feel that right path is where our enemies are aiming their most potent weapons. As a result, I believe it is critically important to better secure the governance mechanism of Hive than simply by delaying powerup, and removing the founder's stake to HPS.
I am confident free speech is an anathema to censors, who have already spent more money censoring people than all the value of all Hive tokens combined. As a result I expect they are today working to do to Hive what was done to Steem.
I think they hate our freedom, and want it dead.
Thanks!
"...I don't use other social media..."
Same here.