It isn't clear to me how voting on competitors in a free market is the ideal solution. This appears to be how we got to our present situation in the United States.
I've been considering the issue of individual action in such a system as EOS and sharding: I'm assuming that if a shard breaks off with its own ledger balances that go on to be changed, if/when the shard re-joins the original, larger ledger the smaller shard balances would be overrided?
What if sharding were used as a feature and sharded ledger balances were given tiers instead of being completely wiped?
Governance in itself is a worthy blockchain project due its own special set of attention and one set of rules is not likely to fit all communities. EOS aims to not only govern itself, but also grant a programmable high speed creative computing platform to its users.
I've considered how I might design a system of malleable rules for local residents to organize in a voluntary way and concluded that even within say a single city block, we are likely to need multiple sets of rules to operate by depending on the subject at hand. It may turn out that EOS gets forked to allow for just those sets of possibilities. I'd bet good money on that outcome.
Free market competition at what cost? If the entry barriers to be a block producer or staker are too high of the order of 10 million dollars, there will be hardly anyone to step in the role. Same thing as how much it costs to set up a political party, do political campaigns to contest in an election. I believe you should decentralize this thing in a way that there is a loose connection across the different resource providers and the different resource providers be basically plug and play candidates and give the individual stake/token holders a far more libertarian economy to work with. A light client working on a home computer or game pc with resources like ram, processor power/hashing power, disk storage outsourced from different vendors like Amazon and ipfs would be a far better approach to decentralization. That will make EOS more truly democratic. We do not want a few oligarchs only controlling the block production.. Again, voter apathy should be a big concern and people with high status quo cannot be easily shaken by the tiny stakeholders. It takes a lot of effort and communications to make different propositions and get them passed through and voted upon.. just my 2cents @Dan
Decentralization would certainly be my priority in a project like this. Democratic? Not so much. Your only true representation is through individual action.
Sorry, by democratic i rather meant giving the individual rights more in a fully decentralized way. I know what you mean by the US and other democracies and how they operate once the votes are gained every 4 or 5 years.. Very hard to impeach the bad presidents and how national security is played as a ploy against the citizen's rights in many parts of the world.
Thanks for taking the time to respond @dan.
It isn't clear to me how voting on competitors in a free market is the ideal solution. This appears to be how we got to our present situation in the United States.
I've been considering the issue of individual action in such a system as EOS and sharding: I'm assuming that if a shard breaks off with its own ledger balances that go on to be changed, if/when the shard re-joins the original, larger ledger the smaller shard balances would be overrided?
What if sharding were used as a feature and sharded ledger balances were given tiers instead of being completely wiped?
Governance in itself is a worthy blockchain project due its own special set of attention and one set of rules is not likely to fit all communities. EOS aims to not only govern itself, but also grant a programmable high speed creative computing platform to its users.
I've considered how I might design a system of malleable rules for local residents to organize in a voluntary way and concluded that even within say a single city block, we are likely to need multiple sets of rules to operate by depending on the subject at hand. It may turn out that EOS gets forked to allow for just those sets of possibilities. I'd bet good money on that outcome.
Free market competition at what cost? If the entry barriers to be a block producer or staker are too high of the order of 10 million dollars, there will be hardly anyone to step in the role. Same thing as how much it costs to set up a political party, do political campaigns to contest in an election. I believe you should decentralize this thing in a way that there is a loose connection across the different resource providers and the different resource providers be basically plug and play candidates and give the individual stake/token holders a far more libertarian economy to work with. A light client working on a home computer or game pc with resources like ram, processor power/hashing power, disk storage outsourced from different vendors like Amazon and ipfs would be a far better approach to decentralization. That will make EOS more truly democratic. We do not want a few oligarchs only controlling the block production.. Again, voter apathy should be a big concern and people with high status quo cannot be easily shaken by the tiny stakeholders. It takes a lot of effort and communications to make different propositions and get them passed through and voted upon.. just my 2cents @Dan
Decentralization would certainly be my priority in a project like this. Democratic? Not so much. Your only true representation is through individual action.
Sorry, by democratic i rather meant giving the individual rights more in a fully decentralized way. I know what you mean by the US and other democracies and how they operate once the votes are gained every 4 or 5 years.. Very hard to impeach the bad presidents and how national security is played as a ploy against the citizen's rights in many parts of the world.