You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: EIP FAQ
My guess is that stake weighted voting is one of the most sybil resistant methods of having a voting economy within a decentralized community where people can be anonymous.
That is to say, it can't be circumvented easily by just making a lot of accounts. It's a very pragmatic reason on top of incentivizing investors to buy more stake to expand their influence. Otherwise, if all votes were equal, more technically savvy individuals would just try to create thousands, maybe millions of accounts and siphon rewards that way.
Thanks for the response, dude. For what it's worth -- I spent a fair bit of time yesterday reading some posts from yourself and @kevinwong regarding the EIP changes, and I think I have a better understanding of the intended effect of the proposal -- so thanks for all the thought that you both seem to have put into the proposal.
That being said -- I would imagine there still has to be a way to leverage some sort of defense against sybil attacks and allow for a 1-account-1-vote system -- especially if there's a legitimate fee associated w/ creating a new account (rather than free accounts via RC's), making it difficult (or at least prohibitively expensive) to create hundreds / thousands / millions of accounts. I know everyone reels at the idea of a blacklist as "censorship", but certainly there's a time and place for allowing communities to protect themselves from bad actors, no?
Regardless -- it's neither here nor there right now, and I don't anticipate it to be anywhere anytime soon, as it seems like an exercise in convincing large stakeholders to release a portion of the large advantage they have over rewarding themselves.
Cheers!
Who would be in charge of the list.. It's going counter to everything that steem is to centralize and create such a position of power. One way to combat the sybil attacks is to go the biometric route, but even that has shortcomings like being able to spoof it, I mean you could literally go the the costume store and get latex and be a whole different person/face, someone with a good 3d printer could make fingerprints, heck it might be far, far easier, like using latex gloves and imprinting a pattern on them, if you really want to go big you could try to spoof the camera, or the fingerprint sensor directly and feed it whatever you want, not that it would be easy but a bad actor would have a huge incentive to do so, and he doesn't have to control the network, just to have a coherent force that could cause a lot of grief and undermine top voting. All that aside, what is the incentive to buy steem for, why hold onto it?
It seems that at the end you pin large stakeholders as bad actors, more or less, arguing that they are interested in rewarding themselves above rewarding others. It's not that disparaging at all, the reason why bad actors are so prolific is because the system taxes good behavior, like it's explained in the op. We've had the Whale Experiment where a majority of the whales and orcas got together and put a soft cap on the rest of the whales votes while they themselves abstained from voting, this went on for more than two months, everyone else saw their voting power increase by more than a magnitude because of this. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the reason why the price blew up a month or so into the experiment, like it was hypothesized, was because of the desire to acquire more steem and power up to have a larger say over rewards.
Posted using Partiko Android