For example limit the votes amount to 7. Now show me how you can spread 80mil sp to take over the chain. Consensus is 17, you need to split 80 mil into 3, which is 26.6 mil each and not enough to vote in all 17 consensus witnesses.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Aha, ok, you vote in a fraction of the 17 witnesses that are needed for consensus, say 12? Then how is consensus achieved without the approval of those 12 witnesses? ;)
When you know you can’t take over, you will probably stay away from witness business completely.
anyway, here you go: https://steempeak.com/steemit/@justinsunsteemit/open-letter-to-steem-community
Yes, saw that. Thanks.
You spread your 7 votes from the 73 million SP across an overlapping mix of 17 witnesses, which is 30 million each. That's probably more than enough. Currently top witnesses get around 45 million but that is with everyone having 30 votes as well. If you drop the 30 to 7, then the other witnesses' vote totals will drop too. If we, probably conservatively, estimate that totals drop by half, then totals are down to 22 million, and 30 million is easily in control.
If somehow that isn't enough, which I doubt, then you buy a small amount of STEEM to net up the total, campaign and count on at least a few people always being easily swayed to anything or confused, and/or you offer a few people to pay for their votes. It won't be hard to get what you need, even if this means the rest of the stakeholders are voting, say, 90% against you.
No plausible voting rules are going to contain 71% of the active voting stake from taking control. It won't happen. (And if you could, it would greatly weaken the chain by allowing small minority, potentially attacker, stakes to exert greater influence).
Over the last 3 years, I have seen at least half of the top 10 witnesses staying well within top 10 and never dropping below. With lowering the vote amount, I think based on history, we can say most of the top 10 will remain to be the first preference for most voters.
While I agree that it is still possible for 73 mil stake to take over, it makes it more difficult, slow to execute without notice by others, and risky. Considering the risks 73 mil stake-holder would just stay away from voting altogether.
In the event of an attempt of taking over action by the same 73 mil stakeholder, there would be plenty of time for other stakeholders to consolidate their votes around the top 4-7 as a counter-measure to reject any hostile actions/forks.
This was my logic. But I don't know much. You are right. It wouldn't work.
Ive had it with you lady, Of course he is right and you are wrong, smooth knows this chain and community 100 times better than you and you are just pulling your arguments out of your ass.
So why dont you just listen, watch and learn? Just a suggestion...
Not necessary. The discussion about the voting system is perfectly fine and appropriate. It is an exercise in tradeoffs and people see the advantages and disadvantages differently.
Ok, I hear you.
So that didnt work for you then.... you would have come up with an equation that includes real world considerations I guess or apply it correctly.
As you've been clearly told by people that truly understands how this works, your theoretical considerations dont work in reality.