Another day, another attempt to assert control over the ninja-mine.
The most important donation would hopefully come from Steemit, Inc to vastly decrease their current centralized holdings.
Which of course you would continue to expect them not to vote or anything. So despite the rhetoric the twelve "custodians" will end up effectively centrally controlled by Freedom the same way the witnesses are now.
Set up a one-account-per-person oracle, make it sqrt(steem power) or less in the primary account, and maybe this starts making sense. Otherwise you're just whitewashing the same old bullshit.
I've heard this talked about many, many times in cryptocurrency, and I've never once seen it work or someone even come close to actually implementing something. Have you?
Do you realize in asking for this, you may be asking for a draconian style KYC nightmare far worse that George Orwell ever imagined in 1984? Please, be careful what you wish for.
If you understand how DPoS works, do you see a concern with the ninja-mine? Does it represent any existential threat to the security and immutability of the chain? I was told by @smooth, for example, that Hard Fork 9 was pushed through automatically by Steemit, Inc by using their stake to vote in their own witnesses and force in a code change which reset a bunch of keys that were part of an exploit which impacted some people (including those who should have known better). See this comment for details. Though, in that case, it may have been a positive outcome, the fact that it was pushed through without real community consensus should really concern everyone. Imagine how dangerous that power can be if used by an untrustworthy person?
The reason so many who have been hear so long are so frustrated with Ned and Steemit, Inc directly has to do with the issue of trust.
What you are calling bullshit may be reality. Setting up a "one account per person oracle" sounds great in theory, but until I see it working well in practice without becoming a KYC nightmare, I'm still very, very skeptical. Again, I'm fully open to being wrong if you have experience with this and can point me in the right direction (beyond just SMT oracle related empty promises).
"Set up a one-account-per-person oracle"
also have issue with gprd in europe to get this working
Oh, I don't think that would particularly work, especially without "draconian" KYC. But you have to solve that problem. Because there's zero reason not to apply everything you've said to Freedom except that he votes for you.
You don't think what would work? What are you talking about?
I don't know who Freedom is or why they vote for me. They've never made a commitment to use their stake or set an expectation about how it would be used. They didn't push in witnesses for a fork like HF9.
That said, would Steem be better off if large stake holders like Freedom either refrained from voting or moved their stake to multiple accounts in order to distribute their votes more evenly across multiple sets of 30 witnesses? Maybe. As it stands now, I see coin distribution problems in cryptocurrency-governance models as being in the unresolved problem set. It essentially comes down the brick analogy. They can break windows or build houses. If the stake is used well, no one seems to mind. If it's used poorly, then everyone suffers.
You seemed to focus on a small almost after thought of the post, Luke. The pertinent part to focus on may be....
If it were me who converted all my btc to steem when first registering would you be coming after me as sour graped wolves as well?
The best assumption we can make is that the larger one's stake the larger the motivation for the project's success.
Kinda with you on this here. I was thinking 'is this not what the witness votes are for' , which frankly I don't see many people really caring about on a non invested user frame of mind, they just want to post and get interaction in the form of upvotes, resteems and actual not bot comments
Posted using Partiko Android
The job requirement of a witnesses is secure the blockchain. That involves running code and reliable servers. The governance for worker proposals, constitutions, project funding, and more is a much different skillset and it's why many projects such as BitShares have a separate committee for worker proposals that are not the block producers.
Corruption is DPOS' potential 51% attack. Governance run by committees will only further that chance of corruption occuring while making the corruprion less transparent, in my opinion.