You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem blockchain multivote security vulnerability
Sock puppets end run any account based mitigation.
Sybil attacks will nullify any limits one account has over two.
Lowering the 30 to 1 rule lowers the costs of attacks, and does nothing to change the ratios.
Your 30 votes to my three hundred is the same as your one vote to my ten.
This is there so the chain is more expensive to hijack.
I agree with the above comment. It is basically a tradeoff. Having less votes makes it much easier to get enough witnesses to block consensus, but more difficult to get all 20 (Community could focus all votes on 1-4 candidates).
I do like the "witness downvoting" potential. That could make things more interesting.
I agree that having fewer votes makes it much easier to get enough witnesses to block consensus.
But then let's stop false statements about decentralization. Recently almost every witness is using this word in his articles/talks. At the same time, the system is designed to consolidate power.
Downvotes could centralize governance even more.
I think something even better to discuss would be adding a slope with a cap for witness votes. Like, when you just power up your stake is only worth 10% the vote and it will go up to 100% within 30 days or so. This way anyone powering up would have to commit at least for 30 days + powerdown time.
What if we tie the Witness Votepower to some rules like:
I already tried to get this mechanic into a formula and when i have more time, i try to explain better how and why i think this is good.
Im not that good with maths. Its just about the idea and i would be happy if some people read this and think about how we could make the formula better or what problems this could cause. Thank you!
https://steempeak.com/steem/@remotehorst23/steem-blockchain-has-a-major-problem-and-maybe-the-solution-is-pretty-easy
ad.1 - Yes. 1 would be best, 3 would be quite good. But I'm afraid both are impossible.
ad.2 - good idea!
ad3. - reputation could be manipulated, could bring more problems.
ad4. - not possible without KYC, as STEEM owner can always split his stake between many accounts as needed.
As I have explained in the article, while it seems like this at first glance, that's not true. With 1 for 1 voting rule, recent attack by exchanges would not succeed in changing all 20 witnesses.
Well, I poke a lot of smot, and my math ain't as sharp as it was before, I took my argument on authority, perhaps @smooth would have time to enlighten us.