RE: New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.
In order to ban and censor things the entire service has to be centralized. Steem isn't centralized in that way so banning things is impossible. This witnesses will process every valid transaction. There is no censorship, there are no invalid transactions as long as the core rules of the platform are followed. A transaction signed with a valid key will be executed.
I am not advocating a
if you can't beat them, join them
solution
I'm saying that every centralized service on Steem can be destroyed with a decentralized solution. The first and easiest step in the right direction is to decentralize the service itself and undercut every single middle-man leech tapping the pipeline. If users want to buy votes, they at least shouldn't get taxed by a whale.
Make the service free and we will find that less coins are being dumped on exchanges and more minnows and plankton are powering up. The chance of a whale dumping 1000 coins on the market is far greater than the chance of 1000 plankton dumping 1 coin on the market.
Force the free-market to bear the brunt of volatile risk. Bid-bot operators are basically forced to charge for their service because there is no way they'll run it at a loss. By decentralizing the risk that fee disappears, as the risk is distributed to every buyer and selling in the network.
The second more difficult step is to decentralize the trending tab. If everyone sees their own custom trending tab it will be much harder to game by purely pumping up payout value. In fact, some users will shadow-blacklist vote sellers so that people who buy votes actually have a lower chance of appearing on these custom trending tabs.
All of Steem's problems are caused by centralized solutions and can be fixed with decentralized ones.
Not necessarily, the top 19 witnesses can ban and censor technically through a consensus mechanism. They can rewrite the chain.
Posted using Partiko Android
So every witness has to agree and then on top of that hope they don't splinter the community and cause a fork in the chain. Seems pretty slim.
All top 19 have to agree. What do you think Dan was talking about when he made this remark?
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@the-ego-is-you/re-dantheman-the-problem-with-byzantine-generals-20170130t142131108z
Posted using Partiko Android
Very nice. The problem with @dan's love of DPOS is that it makes him blind. Don't get me wrong, it is amazing that he created a new consensus algorithm, but if one group has a lot of coins and they use their influence to rig elections, then it isn't hard to elect 20 witnesses that are all corrupt.
Luckily, crypto is so new and unsettled that literally no one in the space want to do anything that might kill it. However, once crypto goes x1000 again and becomes unkillable, we might see the corruption start to seep in.
Lets start with this: is banning/freezing accounts, removing data from the chain and otherwise moderate how people can interact with the chain a bad idea and if so why, and if not is it then a good idea and why, considering that it's implemented as decentralized, not necessarily dPOS but proof of participation and through participation score levels?
Posted using Partiko Android
Literally anything can happen on any chain with enough consensus. I'm having trouble seeing the point here. Ethereum hard forked to steal back funds from a single hacker.
With a proof-of-stake implementation all that really matters is how trustworthy the stakeholders are. Luckily they have a built-in financial incentive to be trustworthy or their stake becomes worth less.
I want to know why you think we ought to not use blocking banning and otherwise moderate.
Posted using Partiko Android
I think every community should come to consensus about how their platform should operate. Variation and redundancy are imperative to create a robust network.