The solution to avoid the mafias in the witnesses and is my last call to all witness and the community in general: Bts Eos Dct Ppy Steem

20 days ago
46 in eos

Hello, hello
you are.jpg
So please tell me what you think.

The other day I wrote a very long post, @iang asked me.

idea.png

the post

 https://steemit.com/steem/@melea/open-letter-of-a-witness-to-the-communitys-of-steem-golos-peerplays-decent-bitshares-corruption-is-here-you-be-aware

Here is my answer

The only solution to avoid the mafias that I am seeing in the voting of witnesses is that each voter is obliged to vote for all the witnesses that are necessary, if 45 are currently active, must vote compulsorily for 65 not for 3 only or just one. (not logical to me) 45 working and others 20 waiting collecting votes, for start witness when the chain grow for example.

or

If in Steem blockchain there are 30 active witnesses and I am going to vote for some I am forced to vote for 30 and not 10 or 3 as now you can vote for just one, that's Mafia.

If a new miner arrives or one that is not useful you can remove and change the vote. I see it functional and honest.

Do you see what I see or am I missing something?
i ' m new here please educate if me i ' m wrong.

I believed it is totally logical to avoid the pitfalls.

I think the logic is an easy and logical solution. And say that I say last call because I will not continue with the topic, it is the second and last post referring to the topic. I contribute ideas, they do not listen to me, I go where they listen to me not to lose time. Regards and luck. I return to my business at the moment.

You are interested in the subject but I can not explain at all. Look at this video or post about witness work

@dan

@someguy123

https://steemit.com/witness-category/@someguy123/seriously-what-is-a-witness-why-should-i-care-how-do-i-become-one-answer

Thanks for helping the network last as only honesty can do it and do not die for centralized mafias. Thank you.

@decent @peerplays @bitshares @eos @steem

And remember to vote only after reviewing the proposals you review is the one who plays the role of human resources, contracting anyone to carry the finances or the security of your company. Is the same or more here. You have power. But you do not know. Always the same, some few take advantage of ignorance, I do not say it, it is written in history.

 Bye take care! hugs

I was not born to be whale food.
🏊 ꕀ 🐳 ꕀ

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending
72
  ·  18 days ago

Nope. Blind irresponsible voting is not how a DPoS network should be approached. Having as many active witnesses as possible is also not how it should be approached. Steem and (provisionally) EOS use the same method of DPoS witness count and scheduling, different than BitShares and its derivatives. There are 20 active producers with a 21st runner up scheduled.

"The only solution to avoid the mafias that I am seeing in the voting of witnesses is that each voter is obliged to vote for all the witnesses that are necessary, if 45 are currently active, must vote compulsorily for 65"

·
46
  ·  17 days ago

"Nope. Blind irresponsible voting is not"

Where i said that? i cant see where is?

and for make clear: you said better one futboll team 3 not eleven. ok ok

i cant believed, i claim for vote with responsibility.

But any can read and draw your own conclusions. I do not seek an answer or seek votes with this. I know what I am talking about and the decisions I will make. /hugs

40
  ·  19 days ago

Still new to #steemit and exploring it. There should be more transparancy about voting, witnesses, expense - income and so on.

That whales can downvote a small fish isn"t always good. High reputation does not necessarily mean higher morality.

·
46
  ·  19 days ago

Democracy and corruption were born together, the same happens here. But I do not go neither drama, nor corruption, nor the fight lost, where I see corruption I leave. The one who has talent is not sold for four coins. It's my case. Good luck with everything.

53
  ·  18 days ago

Are you recommending that a stakeholder should vote for all witnesses who are running and who have a good written proposal? And, remove those witnesses who are not performing well?

If they are all equally good, I do not see a problem with this. However, rarely, are they all the same.

·
46
  ·  18 days ago

The only thing I'm trying to say is that you should not vote for just one witness or four, you must be obliged to vote all the necessary ones. If you need 11 players for a football team you must choose 11 not one, it is the same here if you need 45 witnesses I must vote at least 45.
For example: I have 100.000 PPY, I divide them into ten different accounts and I vote for myself on tree witness different name but all same person. Now i have tree different witness actives over my control.
It is now possible and it is not legal.
IMO not need explain more why its not legal right?
when talking About "decentralization" "Democracy".

With my system this can not be done so easily. i work in fraud at citibank in the past ,so i know what i m talking about.

AND To make it clear, I do not propose put or remove anyone, I do not even ask for my vote, what I say is that it is broken for me is not functional. Just that. My point of view. /hugs

·
·
53
  ·  16 days ago

I agree with your concern, as I understand it, but I do not think that what you are proposing will address that concern.

I agree with the concern that if one person or a group of people pretend to run multiple witnesses rather than just one, then that is a problem.

However, I do not think that your proposed approach fixes the problem.

  • The minimum number of witnesses required on the various Graphene blockchains is only 11. So, I do not see how voting for 45 witnesses helps.

  • Even if anyone (whether a conscientious stakeholder, or a deceitful conspiracy of stakeholders) votes for 45 witnesses (of which 3 are controlled by the conspiracy), then the conspiracy is still getting voted in. Although, perhaps to your point, it is true that their fraction of the total witness payout will be less than if a conscientious voter had unknowingly voted for 11 witnesses of which the conspiracy of 3 were coincidentally among them. However, a voter still does not know if all 11 or all 45 witnesses are colluding.

Maybe the introduction of some random number of witnesses into the pool would be beneficial. But I wonder to what end? If all witnesses are colluding, what damage can they do? If they do not report off-chain data correctly, or do not report at all on a particular event, then that will be obvious to everyone. Perhaps the biggest issues as I see them are:

(a) an on-chain game involving random number generation by witnesses, and

(b) an on-chain game where players must make a move within a certain amount of time but where witnesses could suppress a move by a player and thereby cause the player to lose a turn/move.

For this to succeed requires stakeholders who have less voting power than the conspiracy and/or stakeholders who do not have the means to detect these issues taking place.

I do not currently have the answers to these concerns, but I am glad that you are raising them.

·
·
·
46
  ·  16 days ago

Agree, whit you.

and for make clear However, I do not think that my proposed approach fixes the problem too.

and when i said: voted for 45 its an example. not a solution.

The minimum number of witnesses required on the various Graphene blockchains is only 11. So, I do not see how voting for 45 witnesses helps.

its an example for look the way for fix some bug.
just that. thanks for read and write.

Note: And in my opinion you have to vote for more than necessary to have some on the bench as they say in football, baxters-sports-witness wants to run the testnet again, that the witnesses who are going to be waiting for votes that are more likely to capture votes while running the test net

·
·
·
·
53
  ·  14 days ago

I like the idea of the bench witnesses running on the TestNet

·
·
·
·
·
46
  ·  13 days ago

I like the idea of the bench witnesses running on the TestNet =
thanks too = baxters-sports-witness his idea. ;) and i like too, cheers