RE: Democratizing Steem!
You're confusing concentration of wealth with centralization. Concentration is not centralization.
Allowing huge stakeholders to control all the witnesses, that's not absolutely the reason why DPoS is so widely criticized.
It is? And clearly these critiques are drummed up from pure unadulterated bullshit, much like that article I posted demonstrated, the large stakeholders don't control all the witnesses, but they should, after all, if you don't trust them to do it why trust smaller accounts with magnitudes less to lose than the large stakeholders?
I don't want one person one vote, I want 10 votes. I stated that pretty clearly.
It's the same effect:
There are 20 positions that are responsible for adapting new code changes, you don't trust large stakeholders to have a native choice to vote over 20 of them, so you want them to only vote over 10, because "democracy" (mob rule) or "decentralization" (where it actually means dissuading stake concentration), because there's a problem which doesn't exist, why not one person one vote, you clearly aren't fixing anything with this suggestion and I think you have absolutely no chance of getting people to vote against their own best interests, but good luck trying, maybe stake based systems aren't for you, maybe you don't see how undermining the basis for holding stake into one account or to concentrate stake undermines the entire reason for pos.
Of course this is centralization, centralization is having very few people having a lot of power over the system.
If that is a large stakeholder via a consensus node (PoS), a large stakeholder voting "his kind" into power (DPoS) or a large mining pool (PoW). All of these things undermine the principle of decentralization.
And as I mentioned PoW, all types of blockchain have similar issues.
If you'd read the literature, you'd know that all these blockchains are heavily criticized for these points. Because all of these blockchain allege decentralization, but in practice it's more a buzzword than real decentralization. (Minings pools, monopolization, etc)
And as I said, I trust a big pool of large stakeholders -> Yes
I trust 1-2 stakeholders -> No.
It is called single point of failure.
And I don't trust a single point of failure, if its a stakeholder or not.
It's not a point of failure in any regard. You know what those critiques are based on? Pure horse shit, for all. Like the article I linked showing that nothing changed if we remove both freedom and pumpkin's stake, so too do mining pools still don't take advantage in any way of their concentration of power to undermine the network by double spending or censoring transactions, and even if they did, it's no more centralized, it is concentrated power, and it does not matter if it's one person, or 10000 joining together, it's still decentralized as there is no single position of power over the system, which is what centralization is based on. The point of not trusting one stake holder with their stake but trusting many stakeholders is lost on you, to you, having more skin in the game should come with more costs and risks and less control.
I see there is no real point discussing with someone who calls the others person arguments "horseshit". Same kind of people who doubt man made climate change or think the earth is flat. What do I care about scientists, I can read a few blogs about the topic myself and I know things very well then.
These people who do distributed system research for many years, they know nothing.
Show me the proof of all this collusion of concentrated wealth if you claim that those critiques are valid. I showed you an article that simply removed both the stake of pumpkin and freedom and absolutely nothing had changed, and I've still to hear of any mining pools colluding to undermine the network, and as for the people who research distributed systems for years, exactly who and where and what are they researching that you seemingly try to inject as if it was even referenced let alone discussed? O yeah, because I called certain unfounded critiques as being formed of horse excrement that means there's no point to discussing fixing an imagined problem stemmed from those critiques based entirely on horse shit.
http://vukolic.com/iNetSec_2015.pdf For example talks about the issues of mining pools leading to centralization. Which got it mainly from here: https://www.infoq.com/articles/is-bitcoin-a-decentralized-currency/ which describe most mining pools as a threat and hope that more decentralized mining pools surge (Where you can apply the mining pool to big stakeholder issue 1:1 almost).
I can't find the paper atm which was talking about the monopoly problem.
http://www.coinfox.info/news/reviews/6417-proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake-merits-and-disadvantages
Does summarize it pretty well though.
If there is a single stakeholder which MAY define all witnesses and then almost do whatever he wants with the chain. Then this is a major risk for the security of the chain. And thus it is not very well decentralized. I don't know what it so difficult to understand with this.
Imagine, someone from another Blockchain doing this to bring down Steem to value his own Blockchain or Steem fork. At the moment this would be even "relatively cheap".
First link references
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229033-majority-is-not-enough/fulltext
For their assertion that bitcoin mining pools can undermine the network, but I'm not going to spend one cent let alone 8 thousand to see exactly what the "greedy" miners can do to undermine the network, so I'll cautiously point out that the 51% attacks have been possible for years and we still have no proof of any of that happening on bitcoin. Even if it's a possibility, it's in the realm of counter to the incentive of mining/securing the network, and if it does happen it likely will be reversed, new rules put in place and things will ge back to working in no time.
As for the other article, it's complete horseshit. As Vitalik said, has there been any such attacks on POS.
No
And that's 3 years later and still nothing to show for it.
Let's suppose for a moment that there's ANY merit to this:
So theoretically, because of the size of someone's stake, they "can" do whatever they want with the chain, saying essentially that with their stake alone, they could force everyone else to comply. Well, good luck getting them to undermine their position so that your unfounded fears and concerns will be assuaged, because in reality, not only is it a complete fantasy to think that one stakeholder could do such things, but it undermines the entire reason for holding stake to penalize, to tax, and to otherwise undermine the power of the stake in relation to how much it is, thereby making holding a certain ammount of stake a risk without any reward, and exactly like a pool of miners colluding to cheat a few bitcoin while essentially destroying the value of bitcoin it's the same for one large stakeholder to invest into the system only to undermine it, because sinking one ship in your head will raise the level of the ocean.
Following that logic, Facebook is not centralized either. There is one shareholder who has mayor stake in the company and which pretty much acts in "the best interest" of the company because of that. So, why do we need cryptocurrencies. Can't we just trust Paypal and Facebook? They are acting in the best interest of their companies too. They're kind decentralized as well. Got a lot of people from all over the world holding their stocks. Let's let Paypal put their money on the blockchain and let them handle the permissioned ledger and it's going to be alright.
The reason I'm in blockchain is exactly to not have this situation. On Steem there was recently a situation where some Witnesses thought about forking the chain, and Steemit Inc said they could elect just the 20 witnesses themselves in that moment.
There is the possibility of that happening, and they said they would do that. Is that decentralization or does it just kinda seem like it.
And of course, as long as they got 30 votes to cast, they could just do that, with 10 votes, especially on the short term, that is much more difficult.
I'm not saying that huge stake holders shouldn't be able to have a big influence. And I'm not denying that this makes sense in the context of game theory. Nonetheless, on Steem this influence is essentially to big, which is a big risk for the chain. So reducing this to 10 votes, would improve the situation while still maintaining the central elements of PoS. (And no, I don't want 1 vote, I want 10).
It's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination:
No infrastructure is compromised by any stakeholder, and no stakeholder could compromise it by playing the game of voting for witnesses, which is largely a popularity contest and has absolutely no basis in reality as a point of failure, and what they would need for that to happen is for witness to go along with them, which again is countered by common sense, as compromising the network will not gain them anything, and even if the large stakeholder compromises the network by voting their own self as top witnesses they would still have to get the rest of the stakeholders to go along with it, and that's not feasible, as by that point they would have went against the witnesses and the majority of large stakeholders if not the entirety.
The whole thing is bogus: there's absolutely no problem, as that article points out when it removed both pumpkin and freedom's stake in witnesses standing, which I'm sure was never their intention, they probably wanted to fan the fears that you're trying to as well: toooooooo much stake.
Yeah, too big, the point is that no such thing exist (risk) but even if it would, it basically says to people "you can invest only this much or you're nerfed", which is essentially counter to the very notion of holding stake for almost everyone: to accumulate ever more influence, and ultimately you're trying to make changes that are completely counter to the large stakeholders, and if you don't trust them to safeguard their investment which incidentally means to not compromise the network it doesn't make any sense to trust a buch of people who have monumentally less stake than them to do the same. Then there's the obvious implications of dissuading stake concentration, and making abuse harder to track since now there's 3 accounts instead of 1, or 30, which is why the native option to vote makes sense at 30, as that is the number of influential witnesses responsible for adapting new changes, and trying to mitigate people's influence over it is essentially square dab in the middle of the road to hell (stake splitting) being paved with good intentions.
Usually, when the other person resorts to likening man made global warming to established science while ridiculing the other person's position on par with flat earth it's because they have no argument, no point to make. Case and point, if you could demonstrate that the problem exists, that one stakeholder controls the top 30/ top 20 witnesses it would go a long way to prove that, but you cannot, because there's no such thing, no such problem, and certainly no proof of any of that, but to reduce the validity of the critique as purely crap, I can provide not only the proof but the rhetoric to back it up, as I've said repeatedly, you do not trust those with the most stake to safeguard their investment but you will trust those with a lot less stake to do so, which makes no sense, well it makes sense if you see the large stakeholder as a threat to the system, but what that is based on is complete Hogwash, as there's no threat and all you have is contorting it into a point of failure as if those votes, those vests would undermine the network in any way, or could.