RE: No changes to witness voting, and why!
"If you're asking why have 30 witness votes then I'd say because it makes sense to have that many choices for different witnesses because it affords a greater spread and creates more neck in neck competition for the top 20 witness positions by giving people 10 more choices than the 20 for top."
That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking a leading question that reveals what matters in witness elections is raw SP, not whether it's magnification is proportional. That magnification doesn't result in more competition, but less, because it enables larger stakeholders to exercise more influence on governance than smaller ones. Their Steem is literally worth 30 times your Steem when it's voted to elect witnesses.
I never mentioned your imaginary threshold. I gave an example using math. The threshold in that math is 1 Steem. Do the math using any stake you want, but do the math and you will understand that if I have one more Steem than you, that Steem is worth 30 Steem in witness elections.
That's a problem you haven't grasped that makes larger stakes 30x time larger when it comes to governance. It breaks DPoS.
You're so confused. You seem to think that some people's SP is worth more than others, and you have absolutely nothing to bring forth that explains or shows why or how that is so, and instead your completely nonsensical vacuous "revealing" "leading" questioning is all you have, utter nonsense.
Here's more nil explanation, completely bonkers idiocy: you understand that each steem, whether it's one or one million, has the exact same influence over witness voting, completely proportionate, yet you claim differently, that large stakeholders have more influence, not because they have more steem, but because of the completely idiotic bullshit lie that their steem is more powerful than other steem, or whatever idiotic nonthought nonsense that you think explains it.
Yeah sure. It's 30 times 1 million steem, while my 600 steem, is not multiplied at all when voting for witnesses, only their steem, because you're not a complete idiot.
Complete nonsense. Not only did you not understand the math, but you have absolutely no grasp on how or why 1 steem having 30 witness votes is the perfectly, linearly proportionate in influence to 1000 steem having 30 witness votes, or 1000000 steem. Ugh, the "it breaks dpos", you don't have anything to demonstrate the nonsense you're claiming, so stop making shit up.
Even if that complete nonsense about '30 witness votes enables larger stakeholders more influence on governance than smaller ones' was true, it still wouldn't mean that there wouldn't be more competition in between witnesses themselves simply because each person has not one, not two, or 10, or 20, but 30 votes, which would obviously empower MORE witnesses than if everyone had even just only one less option, or 29, let alone one vote. The idiocy you keep repeating though is that simply because people can chose 30 witnesses instead of only one, that gives some more influence than others. And the rest is idiotic history.
I don't mind your insanity. I mind your lack of manners. Do try to express yourself civilly, if you want substantive discussion. You are not grasping the basic centralization of influence on witnesses this mechanism produces, and that renders you incapable of cogent comment. Replacing coherence reason with incoherent rage doesn't impugn the facts or me - unless I encourage it.
I won't any longer. Please do not resort to vulgar and insulting comments regarding me or I will necessarily cease providing you a target for your infantile screeching in order to conserve some semblance of civility on my blog.
What insanity? The same insanity that repeatedly exposed your previous nonsense regarding hf21? Is that the insanity? Like when you repeatedly attempted to argue that curation rewards renders curation impossible because it's rewarded, the same insanity that also repeatedly tried to argue that people would be happy to reward others and others alone and they would invest and power up to do so, because curation rewards are unethical? You're here calling me insane and spewing nonsense regarding me, as if you can fool anyone. You can make comments regarding my abilities and mental state because I know you haven't anything to explain how you figure that some people have 30 times more influence per steem than others, an aberration so grave that it's long departed misinformation or disinformation and has arrived squarely at A Bold Face
LIE.
Hey, how is that going btw, looking like a complete moron as you remark that the top stakeholders have no investment sense while you regard curation rewards as "rent seeking", I remember that I commented with a critical eye on your "opinions" and you got "attacked", meanwhile anything I said was labeled as an ad hominem even when there was absolutely nothing to be confused as an attack, yet, I've had far more supportive comments regarding my critique than you have and I've yet to hear anything from you regarding the nonsense that I attacked you. Civility? I think not. You removed all semblance of civility when you started opening your mouth regarding the top stakeholders not having any investment sense, and all logic and reason evaded anything you had to say regarding that when you considered the imperative value proposition for holding more influence, or curation rewards, as a siphon of value, not a producer, and now, you're rambling about some of the most idiotic nonthought nonsense I've heard, that 'some' steem is worth 30x other, and you try to call me insane lol, do you even realize how much scrutiny an open source protocol receives and least how any and all claims of massive advantages afforded only to some within such a system are propelled to be earth shattering damning if they are even partially true, especially if the system in question is monetary in nature? The dumb explodes with you, how has this massive disadvantage/advantage been kept in the dark in a completely open source and transparent place and how is it that you still haven't explained or provided anything that substantiated your claims of such massive (30x) advantage, all the while you have energy, patience and time to fucking lecture me on civility, sanity, reason, and whatever other comically genial remark you feel like making.
Fuck your blog. Fuck your bullshit lies, fuck your repeated cries of being victimized by language, and above all, fuck your idiotic opinion regarding the top stakeholders, finally, if you are so victimized and steem is so unethical and rigged,
Fuck Off and Fork It or ENDURE as the idiot you have made yourself into.
Yes it does by virtue of having more than one choice. One choice for witness per account would result in far greater spread between witnesses, be it in between #2 and #1 spot or the 21st and the 20th because each Steem would only vote once, and each steem voting for one effectively is against all other. Don't worry if you don't understand why more than one vote creates better, more neck in neck competition, and I'm sure you'll keep thinking that it's not at all what's happening, because whales, or whatever.