Some witnesses are entrenched at the top 20 for many years, maybe they think the chain is their property now.
They didn't like the idea of changing the voting mechanism for witnesses (which would have solved the problem from its root) because most of them know that they're at the top because of 2 or 3 whales voting for them (the idea that they are there because the community supports them is delusional).
"...(which would have solved the problem from its root)..."
My research indicates this is untrue, despite the fact that the present witness election system is faulty. There is ~210M Steem presently, and @justinsunsteemit now owns ~100M of it. Of the total, a significant percentage isn't voting for witnesss, whether from lost keys, bailed users, or whatever. @justinsunsteemit presently holds ~150% of the stake historically available to vote for witnesses.
No election system I can conceive of will make that weight of stake in a DPoS mechanism incapable of instant control of governance of Steem at will.
Wouldn't highering the number of consensus witnesses and applying the example you mentioned before allow the community to get few spots? 100/30 (or lower value with each vote) + limit number of votes / will give us a value than can be easily surpassed by some current whales to push many users to the top. What do you think?
The goal is to make it harder not impossible. We will always be in a situation where one or two people are controlling the top 20 spots, which is already the case now. If we nullify the stake of X the one behind it will again become the new player. But I guess this is a natural thing on a DPOS Blockchain.
Tron didn't mention if they brought the whole package (I mean all the Steem in all the accounts) but I can't see them sending 100 to null just for the sake of it.
See, this is why I like smarter people than me. I never thought of raising the number of consensus witnesses. Since that can be increased without limit, then at some point the stake of the minnows can at least elect a witness. Maybe through some combination of increased number of witnesses, per account limits on numbers of witnesses voted for, and making 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, control of the consensus could be prevented to any single stakeholder.
I think it's unlikely, but I'm not a competent mathematician.
100/30 (or lower value with each vote) + limit number of votes / will give us a value than can be easily surpassed by some current whales to push many users to the top.
That's idea: limit account voting up to 3-5 witness rather than 30 witnesses.
i am aware of certain users that have more than ten thousand accounts. Each of those accounts will be able to cast witness votes, which will allow that user to get around the limit on witness votes an account can cast. Many, many users have ten or more accounts.
Each Steem needs to only vote once for witness, and not 30 times.
It has become a good ol boys club with Top Witnesses hasn't it.
I think every one of the Top Witnesses that was involved with the Soft Fork should set down indefinitely to show that this was actually about preserving steem and not about benefiting themselves financially, which it looks like it was.
Some witnesses are entrenched at the top 20 for many years, maybe they think the chain is their property now.
They didn't like the idea of changing the voting mechanism for witnesses (which would have solved the problem from its root) because most of them know that they're at the top because of 2 or 3 whales voting for them (the idea that they are there because the community supports them is delusional).
My research indicates this is untrue, despite the fact that the present witness election system is faulty. There is ~210M Steem presently, and @justinsunsteemit now owns ~100M of it. Of the total, a significant percentage isn't voting for witnesss, whether from lost keys, bailed users, or whatever. @justinsunsteemit presently holds ~150% of the stake historically available to vote for witnesses.
No election system I can conceive of will make that weight of stake in a DPoS mechanism incapable of instant control of governance of Steem at will.
Thanks!
Wouldn't highering the number of consensus witnesses and applying the example you mentioned before allow the community to get few spots? 100/30 (or lower value with each vote) + limit number of votes / will give us a value than can be easily surpassed by some current whales to push many users to the top. What do you think?
The goal is to make it harder not impossible. We will always be in a situation where one or two people are controlling the top 20 spots, which is already the case now. If we nullify the stake of X the one behind it will again become the new player. But I guess this is a natural thing on a DPOS Blockchain.
Tron didn't mention if they brought the whole package (I mean all the Steem in all the accounts) but I can't see them sending 100 to null just for the sake of it.
See, this is why I like smarter people than me. I never thought of raising the number of consensus witnesses. Since that can be increased without limit, then at some point the stake of the minnows can at least elect a witness. Maybe through some combination of increased number of witnesses, per account limits on numbers of witnesses voted for, and making 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, control of the consensus could be prevented to any single stakeholder.
I think it's unlikely, but I'm not a competent mathematician.
Thanks!
That's idea: limit account voting up to 3-5 witness rather than 30 witnesses.
i am aware of certain users that have more than ten thousand accounts. Each of those accounts will be able to cast witness votes, which will allow that user to get around the limit on witness votes an account can cast. Many, many users have ten or more accounts.
Each Steem needs to only vote once for witness, and not 30 times.
And at least five of them hold ninja mined steem.
Agreed @dr-frankenstein, it is well known that without the @freedom vote you will not get into the top 20.
Cg
It has become a good ol boys club with Top Witnesses hasn't it.
I think every one of the Top Witnesses that was involved with the Soft Fork should set down indefinitely to show that this was actually about preserving steem and not about benefiting themselves financially, which it looks like it was.
Agree.
I think there is some of that, but overall there's a lot of fudding from outside the witness pool as well.
Cg