You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The History of Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS)
The point is that there's absolutely nothing to consider that would make a difference because in either system it wouldn't take anything but the agreement of a few people.
That "few of people" can be easily achieved on Steem than Bitcoin. That's my point. Think about it in terms of risk management for example.
The number of block producers that need to coordinate to refuse a transaction is about the same both for Steem and Bitcoin.
On Bitcoin 15 mining pools control 91.8% of the hashrate vs the 15 top witnesses positions in Steem that are needed for consensus.
So in terms of the number of actors that need to coordinate the risk is about equal...the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".
the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".I agree. Even 1 person, as long as you have the resources, in both chains.
Thank you,
15 witnesses that would surely risk their positions much more than the 15 mining pools, should they do anything that their voters don't agree with, whereas on Bitcoin the risk is much more indirect and endlessly less costly.
Sun took over the Steem chain easy with just a few millions. Oen server to run everything.
I want to see him try the same thing on the Bitcoin chain.
Then will try to compare the costs
Except that it still hasn't happened, even despite the attempts at using/hacking the exchanges. You know what cost absolutely nothing though and is clearly transaction refusal even so? The witnesses softforking stinc's stake out. They risked close to nothing considering that they didn't go against the voters. Hypothetically, what would the risk/reward be for mining pools doing the same, especially when there's no governance built in?
No it can't. Heck, the distribution of coins is still better on Steem than Bitcoin, and considering that the trend is for ever increasing concentration of coins into fewer and fewer hands and the same for hash power I don't know what you think "fewer" people means, and that's despite the fact that regardless of protocol or coin, people can cooperate to ignore transactions without any problems what so ever.
the distribution of coins is still better on Steem than BitcoinWhat do you mean exactly by distribution? people who are using the coin, people who are mining or getting or using the coin? those are different chains, and the consensus for transaction refusal is not reached in the same way even if the technicality of it (transaction refusal) is the same.
`considering that the trend is for ever increasing concentration of coins into fewer and fewer hands and the same for hash power``
Unless those people are using nuclear fusion and not seeling anything to cover the energy cost.
You are mixing Bitcoin (the coin) with the question of hash power and transaction refusal consensus.
people can cooperate to ignore transactions without any problems what so everA known fact.
What are you talking about 'those are different chains', the ones mining vs the ones using the coin, or steem vs bitcoin? Not that it gives any credence to the notion that somehow bitcoin, or any other medium, is more resistant to transaction refusal by some inherent system properties, because it isn't and since you seem to think that somehow people agreeing to refuse transactions is different on Bitcoin than steem let's hear exactly why or how that is, when technically it is the same..
There's no "unless". You are free to disagree with my assertion, it doesn't bother me if you want to deny the trends.
No, I'm pointing out that coin distribution is shit poor on Bitcoin and otherS compared to Steem, a tale tell sign of concentration of power which is a good vector for transaction refusal to be implemented by the demand of the whales who could threaten to crash the market and thus make Mining a fruitless endeavor.