RE: Protect & Govern STEEM: Vote for Witnesses NOW!

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Protect & Govern STEEM: Vote for Witnesses NOW!

valued-customer in Hive Governance • 5 years ago (edited)

I really have a problem with forking out stake purchased by an investor. Every other investor in the world will see that. Every other stake on Steem will be just as easily forked away. It will ruin Steem to do that.

I believe a better solution to the problem is to deplete our witness vote VP 100%. Tron has 75M Steem. The way witness votes work now is that Tron can vote 30 times with 75M votes each time.

If that VP depleted 100%, then if Tron voted 75M for one witness, they'd be out of VP and couldn't vote for another witness. If they voted one witness 20M votes, they'd have 55M votes left. This decentralizes governance by allowing each Steem in existence to be voted once for witness.

Tron would no longer be able to simply overwhelm the rest of us with it's centralized stake. At best, they could force in 1/3 of the consensus witnesses, which is not enough for a hostile takeover. It would require 17 of the top 20 to force a HF, and Tron could not do that alone.

Thanks!

5 years ago in Hive Governance by valued-customer

0.00 BPC

2 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

hobo.media 5 years ago

If Steem has to fork, the Steem Classic blockchain would not be the same blockchain as the one Justin invested in. People do not automatically have rights to coins in a fork, devs can edit their fork and people not getting a cut of that network can simply stick with the one they do have a stake in.

Forks are not censorship, they are competition and they empower free will.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago (edited)

I submit you are correct. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Thanks for preventing my continuing in error.

Edit: I feel it is necessary to point out that such a fork would be a new blockchain and new token, which would not bear the exchange value of that on this original blockchain, and neither would be listed on the exchanges until we get them to list it. Justin Sun would continue to possess his extant Steem on the original blockchain, and could proceed at will without those that forked off into the new blockchain.

The original tokens would remain the property of the possessors on the original chain, subject to what governance Tron sees fit to exercise. Some folks unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies may not understand this.

0.00 BPC

[-]

hobo.media 5 years ago

You are right, Justin is going to win in terms of exchange tickers. In fact, a Steem Classic might be economically screwed with near zero liquidity and be available only on shitty exchanges.

But at the same time a fork might be necessary for the future of SE token projects. We might be able to adapt and we might not. The SCOT projects, many contest systems and my own contest system is held in the balance in this situation. I have no idea if the SE tokens will even be able to exist to provide the utility that people got them for.

SE-based operations are very much at risk of needing complete overhauls if we lose this blockchain in place for some dapp on Tron. A Steem Classic, profitable or not, might be the only way for SE-based community projects to stay functional.

0.00 BPC

[-]

lauch3d 5 years ago

Unfortunately the safety and liveness treshold for classical synchronous consensus is 1/3. You need 2n + 1 good nodes/stake/hashpower in order to tolerate n faulty nodes. When there is 33% malicious stake than the byzantine fault tolerance property is lost.

The Last irreversible block (LIB) as Larimer calls it is the block which has 2/3 majority consensus behind it. As long as 2/3 are behind the LIB there will be no node joining a fork which is not build on this LIB. But hey why should Sun care about this

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago

I am not technically competent enough in the field to have been aware of that prior to your comment. I deeply appreciate learning this new information to me.

In order to clarify my understanding, 1/3 stake is capable of preventing a Hf even if 2/3 of the top 20 agree on it? AFAIK it takes 17 of the top 20 witnesses to agree on a HF, so it seems if 100% of the vested stake on Steem were voting on witnesses, 1/3 of it being hostile to a HF would prevent consensus. Correct?

Thanks!

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

lauch3d 5 years ago (edited)

yes you was right but it is 17 nodes to prevent a fork not 17 nodes to initiate a fork. 17 is what comes next to 2n + 1 which is basically >75%. 16 (or more correct 15,75) nodes is 75% and since there is no 1% of a node it needs 17 nodes for honest majority.

So over 1/3 is capable of initiate a majority fork. As long as it is up to 1/3 it is only a minority-fork which will die quickly.

Up to 1⁄3 of the nodes can be malicious or malfunction and create a minority fork. In this case the minority fork will only produce one block every 9 seconds while the majority fork will produce 2 blocks every 9 seconds. Once again, the honest 2⁄3 majority will always be longer than the minority.
Larimer 2017 dPOS the missing Whitepaper

The confusing part is that forking in dPOS is not the same as in Bitcoin. If we want to be free we could easily set up a new independent system, but as you have mentioned, this is not how things are intended. The best way realy is to re-elect. dPOS can be compromised by a 1/3 + 1 "Majority" but it will still run in a pending state, so that we only need to concentrate our stake to the running/remaining honest nodes.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago

"...we only need to concentrate our stake to the running/remaining honest nodes."

Imma keep my eyes peeled @lauch3d! Thanks for the primer. I'd probably never have understood how this worked without your help.

Thanks!

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

oldtimer 5 years ago

Don't you think that it's already to late to implement this change?

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago

No, I actually think Justin Sun won't oppose it. He's said he is not going to vote witnesses with his stake. He should, if he understands how witness votes work, support this strengthening of decentralization of governance on Steem. He has said he supports decentralization.

I think it's definitely long past due, but I don't think it's too late.

0.00 BPC

[-]

hobo.media 5 years ago

He did not make a firm promise to never use his votes, it was a soft, clearly temporary statement.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago

Yes. However, this change does not prevent him having enormous influence over governance, it only prevents him from having the ability to install 30 witnesses at will. I don't believe he will oppose the measure when compared with the threat some are making to fork the blockchain.

0.00 BPC

[-]

uyobong 5 years ago

Does it take 100% VP to cast a single witness vote?

Posted via Steemleo

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

valued-customer 5 years ago

I believe even if your stake is delegated to another it still counts as yours when you vote for witnesses. Ordinary VP depletion definitely does not affect witness votes from what I have understood.