Do you think that collectivism is more prevalent in delegated proof-of-stake systems (EOS, Ethereum 2.0) or that it can infect Bitcoin with the proof-of-work consensus in the same way?
Do you think that collectivism is more prevalent in delegated proof-of-stake systems (EOS, Ethereum 2.0) or that it can infect Bitcoin with the proof-of-work consensus in the same way?
Good question. In my view DPOS systems are more malleable to this.
The issue is actually quite deep. In any way you make a product, then many people make their individual decisions, then those decisions form the collective consensus. The difference is when you keep your focus on building the community first. The DPOS systems have this "community building" notion right in the protocol.
What about Hive?
The word "community" is often used, but the context may be different.
For example, when a post is voted on by the community, it is still an action of each individual voting with his or her own stake.
Another example would be blacklists. A person/group manages a blacklist and applications integrate them, automatically applying the policy rules to all their users (users cannot opt-out from this control).
What happens if witnesses start refusing records posted by blacklisted accounts (as it happened on Steem)?
Steem/Hive story is a good and useful example here.
J. Sun did not come with a new product. The product was secondary. He started with "building" (bribing?) a new community.
Right on the point.
My hope with Hive is that: