You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is Dan Larimer Vilianized Rather Than Celebrated?
I don't think this solution will be as effective as you think. Yes, the votes will decay and the proxies will lose their power, but nothing will ever get done on the platform afterwards.
Everyone in crypto right now is a wannabe trader chasing greens on Poloniex with no regard for the platforms and no research whatsoever. So the votes will decay but there won't be any new ones.
Correct me if I'm wrong
there will always be new ones unless nobody is using it. vote decay is important to force some level of attention to network and adjust based on participation rates
What about the problem over time of accounts that are abandoned, people who die and don't pass on their keys or login info?
Given the choice between a centralized management structure vs. a decentralized one (at least for crypto-currency projects) I will choose the decentralized approach b/c I have learned from history, which demonstrates the evils of a centralized authority. In the private sector centralization (accelerated by help from gov) leads to mega-monopolies that skew markets squeeze smaller competitors.
Centralization definitely provides higher efficiency, but at the risk of birthing a monopolistic dictatorship of the elite that rise to the top. It is a belief in authority (which Larken Rose so articulately describes) is THE most dangerous belief system on the planet if you consider the lives lost to it over the centuries.
No, dude, decentralized is better, centralized is dangerous... I know that stuff. I said "won't be as effective", not "it won't work". I just think that most of the " stakeholders" are in for a quick buck and don't give a crap about voting.
@eosfan said something about adjusting based on participation - that's a great idea actually, but how do you do that? Probably will have to bring back the "against" vote...
That's what I said, so yes dude, decentralized is better even if it slows progress, b/c at least it will be progress that is focused on sustainability and sound principles that provide financial independence, not narrow minded and focused only on making a short term profit. Get that diseased idea out of here /:
I think I messed up the syntax of that sentence... I meant "you don't need to tell me that, I know it"
My concern is not the slowing down but a full stop of the progress. If you need the majority's vote to fix/introduce something in the system, and the majority are profit-chasers - you will fail.
I am also worried about centralized exchanges - they don't realize it yet, but they have a lot of voting power.
Again, I do not dismiss your idea - just trying to understand the cons and maybe come up with better solution :)
I see, cool cool. If vote decay is implemented well it should take care of dead accounts, but it's unclear if it will help centralization.
There were 2 approaches discussed in Telegram on this.
I prefer the 2nd option, but anyone that designates a proxy would need to have exception rules since they they don't vote themselves.
Upon more thinking about the centralization concerns with proxies, I believe vote decay will only work for people who don't use the platform very much. Those who wish to maintain their support for a specific proxy just need to do what is decided to reset their vote decay
I think a more sophisticated approach to reduce voter apathy is necessary. We need an incentive system to reward voter participation. It needn't be expensive or complicated, a simple gamification of voting with a dopamine reward (like facebook employs with their "likes") may be all it takes to encourage behaviors like voting to sustain the platform.