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.
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 🤷♀️
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!