Well it depends on how it would be implemented. The parameter "account age" could be used to exclude the posibility of ranking as witness unless a set mininum account age is achieved. In that case no other parameter of REP (followers, upvotes, etc) could help to avoid the exclusion.
If that is what people want, they should vote on that. I may be in favor of accounts that are at least 3 months old. Well, I might be ok with no minimum age required and base the requirements on REP, etc.
I'm thinking more in terms of human society. STEEM is just 4 years old, but would you put a 3 month old in charge of it? A baby ruling a kindergarten.
50% of STEEM age would be a better guarantee. Of course if STEEM was a 100 year old community, a 50 years old mininum account age would be too much, so a limit on the requeriment could also be established.
Something like: At least 50% of STEEM age or 10 years. A very stong barrier for newcomers.
Age is not relevant because age will not automatically make a sock puppet account become real. Tron could make a bunch of accounts and those accounts could eventually become old enough for your standards. And that means they can some day be old enough to ride, like tall enough to go on your roller coaster. What really matters is letting people vote for witnesses. But at the same time, perhaps Steem needs states and an electoral college.
a bunch of accounts and those accounts could eventually become old enough for your standards.
If you can delay an attack for 2 years, that's a feature. It's a lot of time to prepare a defence, don't you think?
PS: I'm not trying to present a bullet proof idea, just ideas for a better protocal than DPOS, making use of data provided by the use of the accounts over the years and somehow incorporate that data on the protocol, per comparison increasing the cost of an eventual attack.
It is not a 2 year delay if they have sets of sock puppets accounts that can come out one day and then another group of bot accounts could pop up the next week or the next month following that and all the accounts could be two years old or older and they could come out.
But if reputation is based on several factors, account age, comments/posts made, votes received, and anonymous peer t0 peer reputation voting (perhaps weighted by reputation of the voter), then accounts would only gain reputation (and therefore be able receive rewards and voting power) if they are real people. 1 person with 100 accounts would have to work 24 hours per day to gain even a small reputation - but i think it would become obvious that they are not real so reputation would not be gained. Here is a draft i made in 30 minutes today (doesnt include the peer to peer voting yet). It's just food for thought https://steempeak.com/blockchain/@atma.love/re-argsolver-q7d1u0
Well it depends on how it would be implemented. The parameter "account age" could be used to exclude the posibility of ranking as witness unless a set mininum account age is achieved. In that case no other parameter of REP (followers, upvotes, etc) could help to avoid the exclusion.
If that is what people want, they should vote on that. I may be in favor of accounts that are at least 3 months old. Well, I might be ok with no minimum age required and base the requirements on REP, etc.
I'm thinking more in terms of human society. STEEM is just 4 years old, but would you put a 3 month old in charge of it? A baby ruling a kindergarten.
50% of STEEM age would be a better guarantee. Of course if STEEM was a 100 year old community, a 50 years old mininum account age would be too much, so a limit on the requeriment could also be established.
Something like: At least 50% of STEEM age or 10 years. A very stong barrier for newcomers.
Age is not relevant because age will not automatically make a sock puppet account become real. Tron could make a bunch of accounts and those accounts could eventually become old enough for your standards. And that means they can some day be old enough to ride, like tall enough to go on your roller coaster. What really matters is letting people vote for witnesses. But at the same time, perhaps Steem needs states and an electoral college.
If you can delay an attack for 2 years, that's a feature. It's a lot of time to prepare a defence, don't you think?
PS: I'm not trying to present a bullet proof idea, just ideas for a better protocal than DPOS, making use of data provided by the use of the accounts over the years and somehow incorporate that data on the protocol, per comparison increasing the cost of an eventual attack.
It is not a 2 year delay if they have sets of sock puppets accounts that can come out one day and then another group of bot accounts could pop up the next week or the next month following that and all the accounts could be two years old or older and they could come out.
But someone has had to create those accounts two years in advance.
True, but once they do, then you could have a situation where they come out again and again.
But if reputation is based on several factors, account age, comments/posts made, votes received, and anonymous peer t0 peer reputation voting (perhaps weighted by reputation of the voter), then accounts would only gain reputation (and therefore be able receive rewards and voting power) if they are real people. 1 person with 100 accounts would have to work 24 hours per day to gain even a small reputation - but i think it would become obvious that they are not real so reputation would not be gained. Here is a draft i made in 30 minutes today (doesnt include the peer to peer voting yet). It's just food for thought
https://steempeak.com/blockchain/@atma.love/re-argsolver-q7d1u0
That is true. I have read about that line of thinking concerning how it is to work for REP.