You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: My Personal Thoughts - Steem/Tron Saga

in #steem2 years ago (edited)

I believe you have gotten this reaction because much of what you suggest actually changes the base design of DPOS. If stake weighed voting is not what you want (and I have my own issues with it at times), then dpos perhaps is not for you. And I don’t mean that negatively.. it’s just some of these things are basis of the whole design itself.

As far as witness vote expiration, how to avoid issues with exchanges voting in the future etc.. I feel all these things have been openly debated and may be experimented with in the future.

This situation isn’t just about a large stake holder though, as you imply.. it’s about a fund that was established in ways that gave them an advantage and all of this was “accepted” based on the idea that it was done in place of an ico as a way to find development for the Steem blockchain. Therefore it’s very different imo

Sort:  

You can have stake weighted voting of witnesses that use mana, just like votes on content do. Things just like that (and others) have been mentioned on here for a couple years now but none of the top witnesses thought it necessary to do anything about it, mostly because they were all being kept in power by a handful of accounts. Changing that would have affected their paycheck.

Mana has to do with regeneration of vote amount.. RCs etc.. how does that have anything to do with witness voting or how would that even be beneficial? Or are you saying you don’t feel there should be 30 equal weight witness votes?

Yes, I am saying that every vote for a witness you cast it uses your witness voting power. How many votes you wanna cast depends on how much weight you want to give to each vote. 1 full power vote or any number of smaller votes. It's essentially one vote per stake, but the weighting of that vote can vary.

That's a pretty good idea. I had a similar idea using weighted ranking. For example, first ranked witness receives a full vote, second ranked witness receives 80% of the vote, third ranked receives 64% of the vote, etc. You could vote for 20 different witnesses but it would only be equivalent to 5 full votes.

I think your approach is more flexible but achieves the same objective of decreasing the ability of any large stakeholder from controlling all the top witnesses.

Please reread my exegesis of how witness voting currently works, and what I propose is necessary. In no way do I suggest anything other then DPoS. What I note happens now is that larger stake's influence is multiplied 30x.

That's not DPoS at all, but stealth oligarchy. Stake should be proportionately represented in influence on governance in order to effect DPoS, and that is what I propose.

The abstention of exchanges and the founder's stake from voting is a separate issue, and I also recommend both of those parties execute code already available to restrict their accounts from voting.

I do specifically address the founder's stake advantage, and agree with your characterization of it's threat to decentralization as remaining unaddressed.

Perhaps you're tired, and did not understand the comment. Regardless of why you didn't understand the comment, your reply indicates you did not understand it.

tl;dr

  1. I do only discuss DPoS, and not some other mechanism.
  2. the problem I discuss is disproportionate representation of stake in the present witness voting mechanism, not DPoS at all.

" The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."

How is that DPoS?

  1. I do specifically address the founder's stake and agree with you that it has been a threat as long as Steem has existed, that the witnesses have not resolved.
  2. I did not address the founder's stake or exchanges abstaining from voting in this comment, but agree they must abstain, and have said so elsewhere.

I don’t agree that casting equal votes somehow makes the playing field unfair.. and this all is completely irrelevant from my post tbh. So in my current very busy schedule, I will not be taking the time to debate something that I feel is completely irrelevant. Whether stake should be able to cast 30 votes, and therefore “control consensus” is a fair question, but considering any changes to decrease this could be simply countered by making multiple accounts sort of defeats the purpose. Imo.

I appreciate your opinions and will look back on the decisions of this that have been brought up, but I think the idea behind it is quite flawed imo.

Whether stake should be able to cast 30 votes, and therefore “control consensus” is a fair question, but considering any changes to decrease this could be simply countered by making multiple accounts sort of defeats the purpose. Imo.

No. Creating multiple accounts would not allow you to circumvent anything, since those accounts would now have less voting power. So if we reduced the max vote to let's say 5. And you still want to control all 20 witness positions, you would need 4 times more STEEM than before. Because in order to get in 20 witnesses you would need 4 different accounts each voting 5 different witnesses.

I’m for decreasing witness votes, but stated I have no interest in debating mana voting.. which apparently has pissed off some people. I don’t really care anymore 🤷‍♀️

"...casting equal votes somehow makes the playing field unfair..."

Sad you seem to misunderstand very simple math.

Try to get some rest. I know you've been busy.

No, I don’t misunderstand simple math.. I just have this horrible fault of actually understanding how the blockchain works. And for the record never attacked you here, just said I didn’t agree with the base thing you were saying needed to be fixed and therefore didn’t see the need in debating it. If you want to, go make a post about it...

Thanks, have a great week.

So, how do tokens with greater influence on governance, 30x times more influence, become equal votes? I do not understand your understanding.

Do please explain this to me, since you know how the blockchain works and understand the math. Because tokens with 30x the weight of other tokens do not seem to be equal to me.

@valued-customer you are not wrong, I'll use a solution (of sorts) to illustrate the larger problem.

Lets say we restrict any top 20 witness so it gets maxed out at 10-25% of total stake votes, and the more votes a witness has from the same account, the faster the steempower vote decays, or some counter intuitive algorithm that encourages periodic review of votes and diminishes the repeat big votes. eg. 1 SP that is a new vote has 100x more powerful (capped at 10 - 25% of stake) than 1 million SP that has voted the same account 90% of the time last 1-2 years.

Unfortunately dpos is still an oligarchy in some sorts even with 1 SP= 1Vote (vs 1 SP = 30xVote), hard to change unless stake holders becomes radical long term altruistic thinkers (aka not humans yielding power) .... E.g try telling OPEC (shieks) and Russia (putin) to start mass investing 90% of their resources into clean tech and deleverage from oil pollution for it's people's and planets sake...... it's just too much inertia (greed) to overturned.

best to hf Steem (if it's to survive) reboot a new block chain into some sort of Egalitarian-Weighted-DPOS blockchain, how that would work would probably need some gifted architectural foresight.

Such a EW-DPOS would surely encourage new ideas to be implemented quicker and equally let bad ideas die off faster, this would naturally speed up the blockchain ability to evolve faster.

or go leave some ideas with @theoretical so when he create a new social media crypto it deals with DPOS damaging weaknesses revealed by Steem's experimentation.

https://steemit.com/blockchaindev/@theoretical/c3cjk-hello-world

You're absolutely correct on every point and in every detail.

Thanks!

You made a very nice video, but DPoS is hardly perfect. Its an experiment and valued-customer is simply suggesting tweaks, not the complete removal.

Frankly, I believe we should change the stake weight to a stake amount * stake duration system. Its still a DPoS (or Techno-republic as I think of it), you still have witnesses and the general idea, but it guarantees the most loyal to the blockchain have the most influence.

It would also protect against opportunistic whales performing a hostile take over. Your stake may be nothing like Justin's, but in this system you can win by being more devoted long-term. If you and others decided it would be worth it to you to stake for a much longer duration than Justin would be comfortable with, it could be easier for you to maintain the status quo.

Justin showed us that the current system is more of "Proof of Bought Tokens" than proof of stake. If influence was based on both amount of tokens staked as well as length of the stake, then you can say its a true skin-in-the-game system.

I agree it’s very flawed, even said so in the video.. in fact dpos is so flawed I’m not sure it can achieve what we have attempted for it to do, add in an inflation pool that encourages individuals to devalue the ecosystem for a quick buck and we have the shit show we have today.

I’m aware the gentleman wants to tweak it, and I fully encourage that and have seen many talks about it. What I said, originally, is I felt like much of his ideas actually questioned the base layer of the chain. Now reading his over 20 comments on my post.. I see he simply wants to reduce the number of witness votes an account can cast, which I agree with to a point. From the first comment, that wasn’t clear.. and having seen his interactions previously.. didn’t feel like debating the base layer of the chain today. So I believe I simply agreed to disagree.. which he then needed to insult me, and spam many of my comments with nonsense.. and now has taken over my post of how apparently I’m working with the evil stakeholders or some shit .. so quite frankly.. 🤷‍♀️ I don’t have much more to say.

Fair enough, if you are being harrassed no need to respond to him. I have not been following all the comments, just that one from him was quite lengthy and caught my eye.

"I see he simply wants to reduce the number of witness votes an account can cast..."

No. I reckon you should be able to vote 1, or 500 witnesses, but your votes are based on VP, just as ordinary voting, and for witness votes that VP depletes 100%, and doesn't recharge.

This means that each Steem you vote with can only vote once. Not 30x. This means that if you have 1M Steem and Bob has 100 Steem, the difference between your stakes is 999,900 and the difference between your influence on governance is 999,900.

Each stakeholder then wields as much influence on governance as they have stake. That's what I propose, and that's what I think most people think stake weighting works like now, but does not.

That's a very interesting idea. I had only thought of simply using our current VP mechanism to deplete witness votes 100%, and not recharge them until and unless they were withdrawn, and then to recharge them 100%, which makes the code easy and pretested (for four years now), but adding a powered up time variable does have merit, if adding to coding and testing complexity.

Thanks!

I have realized how deceptively you manipulate people. I note that @ngc has long done exactly this through the @berniesanders account. I also note how the consensus has been controlled via this 30x magnification of a few massive stakes.

I also have observed the Hegelian Dialectic in operation before, the creation of a left-right divide that prevents any rapprochement between the subjects of such leadership, and see that same policy could be ongoing on Steem, through the posturing of Ned/Sun on one hand and the consensus witnesses on the other.

Working together you, Ned, and the witnesses have engineered this crisis to manipulate stakeholders into passionately supporting the oligarchical governance of Steem that has been long delivering over 90% of rewards to whales - like you.

I hadda sober up before I saw it, but I did, and now I see it. You have served (not this account, but this user, who controls the @ngc family of accounts) as a mastermind manipulating the society with your ability to adopt personae, and also to coordinate support for consensus that constitutes a cabal of profiteers from the outset of witnessing. You have long worked with @ned to do this, and may be coordinating with Tron to do so now.

"User A has 1m Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 30M Steem influence over governance. User B has 100 Steem, casts 30 votes for witness, and wields 3000 Steem influence over governance. The difference between their hodlings is 999,900 Steem. The difference in the weight of their influence on governance however is 29,997,000 Steem."

This 30x multiplication of the influence of the largest stakes on governance has enabled your cabal to maintain an iron grip on the consensus, and now has enabled Tron to utterly centralize governance using Stinc's stake with @ned's help.

Depleting witness vote VP 100% without recharge completely defeats this scheme, and that is why members of the cabal have so long pretended to fail to understand the problem and the solution, retreating to puerile misunderstanding and a posture of incompetence as is so often seen IRL politics.

DPoS is broken, and 30x magnification of the largest stake is one of the breaks that has allowed Steem to be threatened with complete centralization. These breaks have made the consensus cabal a lot of money, and pretending to be retarded has prevented rational discussion. When that failed, Bernie's bots could drive people off the platform, as has been successfully done repeatedly.

I almost sympathize with proxy.token voters at this point, except I see that their tactic is the opposite of what will decentralize governance of Steem. Supporting either side in this contest supports oligarchical dominance via magnification of stake weight on governance. Both the consensus cabal and Tron profit from the mechanism.

Supporting 1 Steem = 1 vote for witness is necessarily opposition to both overlords, not splitting support between them. I will be considering how best to proceed given this new grasp of the machiavellian political machinations you've long undertaken, and what that means in relation to establishing an actually decentralized consensus.

Thank you very much for enabling me to grasp how prone to manipulation I have been. I mean that sincerely, as few things could make me more vulnerable to overlords.