Democratizing Steem!


In the last weeks there were many discussions about the future of Steem and with it a lot of insatisfaction in relation to the democratic process on Steem. This is mainly based on how little influence most users have on the election of the top 20 witnesses since they mostly depend on the votes of a few of the biggest whales.

Besides hanging around on Steem, I am doing a P.h.D in Blockchain Consensus which not only involves the algorithmic side but also analyzing the game theory aspects of consensus in distributed ledgers.

The fault in the System:

Fortunately, in the case of Steem, we can quickly figure out where the problem lies.

Which has been proposed other times already on the chain as well by @ats-witness https://goldvoice.club/steem/@ats-witness/steem-witnesses-vote-number-and-decay

Why can each user elect 30 witnesses, why not 10? why not 5?

Let's analyze this using a small example:

If you can elect 30 witnesses:

One account with enough stake to elect 1 of the top 20 witnesses also has enough stake to elect ALL the top 30 witnesses!

If you can elect 10 witnesses:

One account with enough stake to elect 1 of the top 20 witnesses only has enough stake to elect half of the top 20 witnesses!

I think the example above pretty clearly shows the entire problem. The more witness votes the top stake holders have, the more influence they have and the more centralized the system is.

Delegated Proof of Stake is already heavily critized for its centralization problem and not enough, one of the main weaknesses of Proof of Stake is the Monopolization problem because the biggest stake holders have an evergrowing influence on the network.

This, combined with giving the top stakeholders so much power in this democratic process is a heavy problems in terms of decentralization.

My Proposal:

Each account can elect only 10 witnesses.

To reduce the problems, I propose a transition period to give people enough time to order their witness votes.

During this period, after the hardfork, every user still has 30 witness votes but is now able to order the votes after their personal priority.

After a certain period is over (at a specific block), the latter 20 witnesses are then discarded.
Users which did not order their list specifically will lose the 20 last witnesses they voted (Based on the Data of selection).

Will it help the Steem price:

To be honest, we don't know, but, I actually think yes.
One of the big reasons Steem is not very interesting for crypto investors is the heavy centralization aspect which could be heavily improved through this process.

But not only that, with this proposal, new investors are also motivated to stake their Steem since they can have now a much bigger influence in the democratic process on the Steem blockchain.

Is it realistic to be accepted:

Now, there are two mayor hurdles in this process:

1: The Top 20 Witnesses

The top 20 witnesses will not be too happy about this because they will be afraid to lose their positions up there in the sun.

2: The Stakeholders

The top stakeholders will also not be much interested in losing their influence in the chain and might want to elect witnesses which are against this proposal.

In the end it all comes down to one question:

What is the best for Steem?

We have a decreasing price, stagnant user numbers, decreasing market cap rank and worse, people on the chain, especially the dolphins and other small users feel left alone by the witnesses and heavily overruled by the big stake holders.

Yeah, witnesses and stakeholders can maximize their position on the chain by maintaining the current course. But, in trade, their investments will lose value and maybe one day being a top 20 witness is not worth it anymore.

Thus, doing what is the right for the chain should, naturally, overrule the egoism to increase the value of their stake and not to increase the stake they have.

I prefer having 10k steem at a price of 1$ than 100k steem at the price of a cent.

And now?

What is necessary now is that the community works together, pressures the witnesses and starts a discussion about this proposal.

@jondoe did a great job pressuring steemit on their last posts to give some feedback to this proposal and from Steemit itself @gerbino pointed out that he was in favor of such a change but that for that a discussion in our community would be necessary

The proposal is definitely not set in stone, and if you come up with better ideas you are invited to join the discussion under this post.

We need a more democratic process, better communication and more transparency of the witnesses and I think a good way to reach this is by simply reducing the number of witnesses each person can vote on.

Images from Pixabay


Comments 52


Parabéns, seu post foi selecionado pelo projeto Brazilian Power, cuja meta é incentivar a criação de mais conteúdo de qualidade, conectando a comunidade brasileira e melhorando as recompensas no Steemit. Obrigado!

footer-comentarios-2.jpg

26.07.2019 13:03
0

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

26.07.2019 13:21
0

While we are talking about game theory, why is the obvious counter strategy not to simply split your extremely large stake into two extremely large stakes, doubling the number of witness votes that you can use backed by what is effectively still orders of magnitude more SP than people even a little bit down the curve?

When I was doing visualizations of SP distribution throughout the Steemit user population, the power curve was incredibly steep. Hyper-logarithmic. With the relative ease of setting up new accounts and staking them now, what would keep accounts with large stake from simply splitting into a group of nodes of smaller stake but coordinated voting?

And then we would end up exactly the same place we are now, but everybody's weight of SP would be spread just a little bit thinner.

The problem with systems like this is that they are trying to imagine that things could work differently than they are given very much the same axioms. The problem is not "insufficient democracy." The problem is "Proof of Stake." The entirety of the blockchain and the way that the system allocates resources is based purely and completely on who has the most stake lodged in the database, and not only is it far better (from the perspective of the algorithm and the creators) for you to have acquired that stake by purchasing it with fiat currency and then simply keeping it unmoving in the blockchain, it is the recommended methodology. Publicly!

This is the problem. This is the very core of the problem. It is also this strong selling point of the platform.

"All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

26.07.2019 16:27
1

Same answer, No, splitting the stake up won't help at all, then you get twice the quantity of votes with half of the quantity of impact. This way you reduce your influence and not grow it.

If you split up your stake you probably won't be able to elect any top 20 witnesses. So you'll probably elect 20 top 60 witnesses which doesn't help you a lot.

26.07.2019 17:24
0

If you split up your stake you probably won't be able to elect any top 20 witnesses. So you'll probably elect 20 top 60 witnesses which doesn't help you a lot.

Huh?

120mv distributed in 10 votes is exactly the same as 12mv distributed in 30 votes.

26.07.2019 17:51
0

120mv distributed in 10 votes = 120mv each vote.
120mv distributed in 20 votes (if its 10 votes per account) would be 60mv each vote.

26.07.2019 17:52
0

You missed the entire point : 120mv = 120mv. You can slice a pie into 30 pieces or 10, it doesn't change the size of the pie.

26.07.2019 17:57
0

But it reduces the slide each of the people get, that's the entire point I'm making.

26.07.2019 17:58
0

No it doesn't. Don't you see that splitting one initial pie into 3 pies of 10 pieces each make each one of those slices exactly as big as slicing the initial pie into 30 slices?

26.07.2019 18:14
0

I really don't get your point.

Right now everyone has 30 witness votes. Where each witness vote is worth the full vests the account has. Let's denominate this as "x" vests.

If the account only voted 1 witness, this witness would also only get one vote worth x-mv, thus, he should vote 30 times since this way he is able to distribute 30 x-mv in votes.

If we restrict his power to 10 votes, he will be able to vote 10 x-mv in votes.
And if he splits this up, it's not worth it.
The total quantity the account is able to vote is 10 x-mv, or 20 x x/2-mv or 40 x x/4-mv, but the more the account splits it, the more difficult it will be to make the vote decide who is in the top 20.

26.07.2019 18:20
0

And if he splits this up, it's not worth it.

Why not? He still controls as much stake in proportion to everyone else as before. Xmv is the whole point, that doesn't magically shrink in influence because they can only vote 10x with it. The orcas that you want to be able to compete with those votes will also only have 10 votes, and they won't be worth any more than before or his any less. It doesn't change anything because he can give out as much of the pie by splitting it up and stacking slices, so that 10 slices will equal to a whole pie, or 30, as before. Being able to natively distribute xmv 30 times or 10 times won't change his influence at all, he can simply split it up and it will still not be any less than the hypothesized orcas and dolphins stakes, because obviously the proportion of his stake to everyone else has not changed.

26.07.2019 18:36
0

It is really easy.

Right now, his 30 votes, can basically vote all the top 30 witnesses => Very strong influence!!!
If he only has 10 votes, he can only vote the top 10 witnesses => 50% of the top 20, much better.

If he splits it into 2x10 votes, each of these votes is worth only half. (Yes it is still worth a lot, but only worth half than what it'd be if he hadn't split it)
So, if the orcas and dolphins don't split their stack, each of their vote is worth more now after the change (because they didn't split their stack).

His overall influence compared to others is the same, but his influence on the top 20 is now smaller, either because he can only define the top 10, or because his vote will only be x/2 compared to the people who don't split their stack.

26.07.2019 18:45
0

His overall influence compared to others is the same, but his influence on the top 20 is now smaller, either because he can only define the top 10, or because his vote will only be x/2 compared to the people who don't split their stack.

There is no but, it is really simple but it obviously still evades your grasp:

Xmv = x% of all v= x% influence over the top 30 witnesses.

26.07.2019 19:14
0

If he splits it into 2x10 votes, each of these votes is worth only half. (Yes it is still worth a lot, but only worth half than what it'd be if he hadn't split it)

He splits it in 3, and he will have exactly the same amount of vests to vote in proportion to everyone else exactly like before, because his stake did not grow or shrink in proportion to everyone else, so yes he will split it and yes it will still have the extact same % of mv over the top 30 as before.

26.07.2019 19:17
0

Okay, let's take an example, an easy one.
Let' s suppose user A has 120mv, and user B has 61mv.

Let's say, there are only user A and user B in the network.

In the situation of 30 witness votes: User A will define ALL 30 top witnesses. And user B has no say at all. User B can only change the order of the top 30, but can't vote his own candidate into the top 30.

In the situation of 10 witness votes:

Two Situations:
User A will either define ALL top 10 witnesses (if he doesn't split his stake) and User B votes the remaining 10.

User A splits his stake to vote ALL top 20 witnesses. But now, user B doesn't split his stake and now has enough stake to vote his 10 people in the top 10.
(61 > 60)

26.07.2019 20:10
0

At best user B could vote 10-20, but then user A would still control 1-10 and 21-30, and the point is still that the stake controls the witnesses, not the number of votes, and undoubtedly it will encourage stake splitting and since the witnesses aren't controlled by any one party there's no reason to encourage stake splitting to circumvent the limit, we might as well set it on one witness vote, why stop at 10, it will have the same effect: people will split their stake up to consolidate their power into more meaningful ways.

https://goldvoice.club/steem/@ura-soul/visualising-the-votes-for-the-top-50-witnesses-with-and-without-the-freedom-pumpkin-votes

26.07.2019 20:48
0

Of course, people will always try to maximize the system. But the entire point of this system is to make sure, that the top stake holders don't have as much influence on the top 20 witnesses.

Especially since witnesses 1-20 have the power to make all the decisions in relation to hard forks etc.
With >= 20 votes, pumpkin has an enormous influence in this. If we reduce this to <= 10, this helps a lot.

I'm not talking about saving the world, but I'm talking about decentralizing the election. And reducing the number of votes, certainly does that.

And I agree, this can be further reduced, to 5,3,1. But I think 10 is a good number. 10 allows people to select a number of witnesses which represent them well and they think represent Steem well while not giving anyone enough power to have such a huge influence in selecting ALL top 20 witnesses basically alone.

26.07.2019 20:53
0

But the entire point of this system is to make sure, that the top stake holders don't have as much influence on the top 20 witnesses.

That isn't at all what the entire point of the system is.

Especially since witnesses 1-20 have the power to make all the decisions in relation to hard forks etc.
With >= 20 votes, pumpkin has an enormous influence in this. If we reduce this to <= 10, this helps a lot.

It does not help a lot, it probably doesn't help anything at all, why would it anyway, you're asking for large stakeholders to split up their stake after all, like I said, why not limit it to one witness vote, it accomplishes exactly the same thing.

And I agree, this can be further reduced, to 5,3,1. But I think 10 is a good number. 10 allows people to select a number of witnesses which represent them well and they think represent Steem well while not giving anyone enough power to have such a huge influence in selecting ALL top 20 witnesses basically alone.

Like that post I linked, it's hardly the case. I don't think we should encourage people to split their stake up, I think that this suggestion fixes absolutely nothing and I wish you good luck to get the large stakeholders to undermine their power because of notions that "they have absolute power" or anything to that effect, especially when it's neither the case nor was it ever intended for this to be one witness one vote (which is where you want this to end up), it was intended actually to give people with more stake exponentially more power, after all, if you don't trust the large stakeholders to safeguard their investment it makes no sense to trust a bunch of small stakeholders to do the same.

26.07.2019 21:43
0

Yeah, exactly, the intend is to centralize the system. Definitely. That's what Blockchain is about. Allowing huge stakeholders to control all the witnesses, that's not absolutely the reason why DPoS is so widely criticized. I don't want one person one vote, I want 10 votes. I stated that pretty clearly.

And no, I don't think it will result in splitting up stake. I don't think Pumpkin would split up his stake for this, nor do I think blocktrades would.

26.07.2019 21:48
0

You're confusing concentration of wealth with centralization. Concentration is not centralization.

Allowing huge stakeholders to control all the witnesses, that's not absolutely the reason why DPoS is so widely criticized.

It is? And clearly these critiques are drummed up from pure unadulterated bullshit, much like that article I posted demonstrated, the large stakeholders don't control all the witnesses, but they should, after all, if you don't trust them to do it why trust smaller accounts with magnitudes less to lose than the large stakeholders?

I don't want one person one vote, I want 10 votes. I stated that pretty clearly.

It's the same effect:

There are 20 positions that are responsible for adapting new code changes, you don't trust large stakeholders to have a native choice to vote over 20 of them, so you want them to only vote over 10, because "democracy" (mob rule) or "decentralization" (where it actually means dissuading stake concentration), because there's a problem which doesn't exist, why not one person one vote, you clearly aren't fixing anything with this suggestion and I think you have absolutely no chance of getting people to vote against their own best interests, but good luck trying, maybe stake based systems aren't for you, maybe you don't see how undermining the basis for holding stake into one account or to concentrate stake undermines the entire reason for pos.

26.07.2019 22:03
0

You're confusing concentration of wealth with centralization. Concentration is not centralization.

Of course this is centralization, centralization is having very few people having a lot of power over the system.
If that is a large stakeholder via a consensus node (PoS), a large stakeholder voting "his kind" into power (DPoS) or a large mining pool (PoW). All of these things undermine the principle of decentralization.

And as I mentioned PoW, all types of blockchain have similar issues.

If you'd read the literature, you'd know that all these blockchains are heavily criticized for these points. Because all of these blockchain allege decentralization, but in practice it's more a buzzword than real decentralization. (Minings pools, monopolization, etc)

And as I said, I trust a big pool of large stakeholders -> Yes
I trust 1-2 stakeholders -> No.

It is called single point of failure.

And I don't trust a single point of failure, if its a stakeholder or not.

26.07.2019 22:13
0

And as I said, I trust a big pool of large stakeholders -> Yes
I trust 1-2 stakeholders -> No.

It is called single point of failure.

And I don't trust a single point of failure, if its a stakeholder or not.

It's not a point of failure in any regard. You know what those critiques are based on? Pure horse shit, for all. Like the article I linked showing that nothing changed if we remove both freedom and pumpkin's stake, so too do mining pools still don't take advantage in any way of their concentration of power to undermine the network by double spending or censoring transactions, and even if they did, it's no more centralized, it is concentrated power, and it does not matter if it's one person, or 10000 joining together, it's still decentralized as there is no single position of power over the system, which is what centralization is based on. The point of not trusting one stake holder with their stake but trusting many stakeholders is lost on you, to you, having more skin in the game should come with more costs and risks and less control.

26.07.2019 23:51
0

I see there is no real point discussing with someone who calls the others person arguments "horseshit". Same kind of people who doubt man made climate change or think the earth is flat. What do I care about scientists, I can read a few blogs about the topic myself and I know things very well then.

These people who do distributed system research for many years, they know nothing.

26.07.2019 23:56
0

Show me the proof of all this collusion of concentrated wealth if you claim that those critiques are valid. I showed you an article that simply removed both the stake of pumpkin and freedom and absolutely nothing had changed, and I've still to hear of any mining pools colluding to undermine the network, and as for the people who research distributed systems for years, exactly who and where and what are they researching that you seemingly try to inject as if it was even referenced let alone discussed? O yeah, because I called certain unfounded critiques as being formed of horse excrement that means there's no point to discussing fixing an imagined problem stemmed from those critiques based entirely on horse shit.

27.07.2019 00:07
0

http://vukolic.com/iNetSec_2015.pdf For example talks about the issues of mining pools leading to centralization. Which got it mainly from here: https://www.infoq.com/articles/is-bitcoin-a-decentralized-currency/ which describe most mining pools as a threat and hope that more decentralized mining pools surge (Where you can apply the mining pool to big stakeholder issue 1:1 almost).
I can't find the paper atm which was talking about the monopoly problem.
http://www.coinfox.info/news/reviews/6417-proof-of-work-vs-proof-of-stake-merits-and-disadvantages
Does summarize it pretty well though.

If there is a single stakeholder which MAY define all witnesses and then almost do whatever he wants with the chain. Then this is a major risk for the security of the chain. And thus it is not very well decentralized. I don't know what it so difficult to understand with this.

Imagine, someone from another Blockchain doing this to bring down Steem to value his own Blockchain or Steem fork. At the moment this would be even "relatively cheap".

27.07.2019 00:35
0

First link references

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229033-majority-is-not-enough/fulltext
For their assertion that bitcoin mining pools can undermine the network, but I'm not going to spend one cent let alone 8 thousand to see exactly what the "greedy" miners can do to undermine the network, so I'll cautiously point out that the 51% attacks have been possible for years and we still have no proof of any of that happening on bitcoin. Even if it's a possibility, it's in the realm of counter to the incentive of mining/securing the network, and if it does happen it likely will be reversed, new rules put in place and things will ge back to working in no time.

As for the other article, it's complete horseshit. As Vitalik said, has there been any such attacks on POS.
No

And that's 3 years later and still nothing to show for it.

Let's suppose for a moment that there's ANY merit to this:

If there is a single stakeholder which MAY define all witnesses and then almost do whatever he wants with the chain. Then this is a major risk for the security of the chain. And thus it is not very well decentralized. I don't know what it so difficult to understand with this.

Imagine, someone from another Blockchain doing this to bring down Steem to value his own Blockchain or Steem fork. At the moment this would be even "relatively cheap".

So theoretically, because of the size of someone's stake, they "can" do whatever they want with the chain, saying essentially that with their stake alone, they could force everyone else too comply. Well, good luck getting them to undermine their position so that your unfounded fears and concerns will be assuaged, because in reality, not only is it a complete fantasy to think that one stakeholder could do such things, but it undermines the entire reason for holding stake to penalize, to tax, and to otherwise undermine the power of the stake in relation to how much it is, thereby making holding a certain ammount of stake a risk without any reward, and exactly like a pool of miners colluding to cheat a few bitcoin while essentially destroying the value of bitcoin it's the same for one large stakeholder to invest into the system only to undermine it, because sinking one ship in your head will raise the level of the ocean.

27.07.2019 01:25
0

Following that logic, Facebook is not centralized either. There is one shareholder who has mayor stake in the company and which pretty much acts in "the best interest" of the company because of that. So, why do we need cryptocurrencies. Can't we just trust Paypal and Facebook? They are acting in the best interest of their companies too. They're kind decentralized as well. Got a lot of people from all over the world holding their stocks. Let's let Paypal put their money on the blockchain and let them handle the permissioned ledger and it's going to be alright.

The reason I'm in blockchain is exactly to not have this situation. On Steem there was recently a situation where some Witnesses thought about forking the chain, and Steemit Inc said they could elect just the 20 witnesses themselves in that moment.

There is the possibility of that happening, and they said they would do that. Is that decentralization or does it just kinda seem like it.

And of course, as long as they got 30 votes to cast, they could just do that, with 10 votes, especially on the short term, that is much more difficult.

I'm not saying that huge stake holders shouldn't be able to have a big influence. And I'm not denying that this makes sense in the context of game theory. Nonetheless, on Steem this influence is essentially to big, which is a big risk for the chain. So reducing this to 10 votes, would improve the situation while still maintaining the central elements of PoS. (And no, I don't want 1 vote, I want 10).

27.07.2019 01:41
0

It's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination:

No infrastructure is compromised by any stakeholder, and no stakeholder could compromise it by playing the game of voting for witnesses, which is largely a popularity contest and has absolutely no basis in reality as a point of failure, and what they would need for that to happen is for witness to go along with them, which again is countered by common sense, as compromising the network will not gain them anything, and even if the large stakeholder compromises the network by voting their own self as top witnesses they would still have to get the rest of the stakeholders to go along with it, and that's not feasible, as by that point they would have went against the witnesses and the majority of large stakeholders if not the entirety.

The whole thing is bogus: there's absolutely no problem, as that article points out when it removed both pumpkin and freedom's stake in witnesses standing, which I'm sure was never their intention, they probably wanted to fan the fears that you're trying to as well: toooooooo much stake.

I'm not saying that huge stake holders shouldn't be able to have a big influence. And I'm not denying that this makes sense in the context of game theory. Nonetheless, on Steem this influence is essentially to big, which is a big risk for the chain. So reducing this to 10 votes, would improve the situation while still maintaining the central elements of PoS.

Yeah, too big, the point is that no such thing exist (risk) but even if it would, it basically says to people "you can invest only this much or you're nerfed", which is essentially counter to the very notion of holding stake for almost everyone: to accumulate ever more influence, and ultimately you're trying to make changes that are completely counter to the large stakeholders, and if you don't trust them to safeguard their investment which incidentally means to not compromise the network it doesn't make any sense to trust a buch of people who have monumentally less stake than them to do the same. Then there's the obvious implications of dissuading stake concentration, and making abuse harder to track since now there's 3 accounts instead of 1, or 30, which is why the native option to vote makes sense at 30, as that is the number of influential witnesses responsible for adapting new changes, and trying to mitigate people's influence over it is essentially square dab in the middle of the road to hell (stake splitting) being paved with good intentions.

27.07.2019 02:14
0

Usually, when the other person resorts to likening man made global warming to established science while ridiculing the other person's position on par with flat earth it's because they have no argument, no point to make. Case and point, if you could demonstrate that the problem exists, that one stakeholder controls the top 30/ top 20 witnesses it would go a long way to prove that, but you cannot, because there's no such thing, no such problem, and certainly no proof of any of that, but to reduce the validity of the critique as purely crap, I can provide not only the proof but the rhetoric to back it up, as I've said repeatedly, you do not trust those with the most stake to safeguard their investment but you will trust those with a lot less stake to do so, which makes no sense, well it makes sense if you see the large stakeholder as a threat to the system, but what that is based on is complete Hogwash, as there's no threat and all you have is contorting it into a point of failure as if those votes, those vests would undermine the network in any way, or could.

27.07.2019 00:17
0

We need a more democratic process, better communication and more transparency of the witnesses and I think a good way to reach this is by simply reducing the number of witnesses each person can vote on.

But how can you achieve it, at all, when all you've accomplished by limiting the votes is to encourage people to split their stake up and maintain the same number of votes? Even if you could, why would it need to be more democratic, it was never about 1 person one vote, votes were never meant to be equal, and if you don't trust the largest stakeholders with their own money, if you think that the ones with pennies to lose {compared to the hundreds of thousands) should have more say for no other reason than those opinions you hold of the largest stakeholders then I wish you good luck getting those that have the stake to bend over.

26.07.2019 17:15
0

No, splitting the stake up won't help at all, then you get twice the quantity of votes with half of the quantity of impact. This way you reduce your influence and not grow it.

26.07.2019 17:22
0

No, splitting the stake up won't help at all, then you get twice the quantity of votes with half of the quantity of impact.

That's the point. The same ammount of stake still has the exact same amount of say. 2x as many votes worth half as much as having them in the same place is equal to having half the votes but worth 2 times the weight.

26.07.2019 17:49
0

Yes, which in the end turns out 1==1.
If for example Pumpkin would do that, it would help the entire chain since it would be much easier to pass his votes with the votes of enough orcas and dolphins.

26.07.2019 17:51
0

since it would be much easier to pass his votes with the votes of enough orcas and dolphins.

Why, their stake did not increase and pumpkin's stake did not decrease.

26.07.2019 17:55
0

If he distributes it into two piles to be able to cast 20 votes, yes, then it did.

26.07.2019 17:56
0

No it doesn't. 60mv + 60mv = 120 mv. How are you not getting something this basic?

26.07.2019 17:59
0

What the hell?

Okay, there are 10 witnesses. If he doesn't distribute his stake into two accounts, each of the witnesses he votes will get a x sized vote.

Peter1 -> x
Peter2 -> x
Peter3 -> x
Peter4 -> x
Peter5 -> x
Peter6 -> x
Peter7 -> x
Peter8 -> x
Peter9 -> x
Peter10 -> x

If he splits his stake into two accounts, each of the witnesses will get a x/2 sized vote.

Peter1 -> x/2
Peter2 -> x/2
Peter3 -> x/2
Peter4 -> x/2
Peter5 -> x/2
Peter6 -> x /2
Peter7 -> x/2
Peter8 -> x/2
Peter9 -> x/2
Peter10 -> x/2
Peter11 -> x/2
Peter12 -> x/2
Peter13 -> x/2
Peter14 -> x/2
Peter15 -> x/2
Peter16 -> x /2
Peter17 -> x/2
Peter18 -> x/2
Peter19 -> x/2
Peter20 -> x/2

This gives each of his vote only half the influence.

Yes, the total quantity of stake voting is the same, the influence is smaller. Since he can't push so many people into the top ranks.

26.07.2019 18:03
0

Yes he can, because obviously his stake in proportion to everyone else has remained unchanged. You act as if somehow splitting a hypothetical 120mv into 30 votes, 300 votes or 3 votes will change the influence of the 120mv when they can split it off into 10 accounts casting 3 votes each, still totaling the same exact amount of influence in the exact same proportion to the hypothesized orcas and dolphins that will all of a sudden, for no other reason than changing the amount of votes, will have more influence than before? Check your math. Slicing the pie into 30 pieces does not mean the pie is bigger then slicing it into 10 pieces.

26.07.2019 18:11
0

What I am talking about is that each piece of this pie is now smaller. This means that other people can more easily give bigger slices to other users to overrule his "now smaller slices".
So either, he has to give multiple slices to a user to match it (which then would negate the effect of splitting up the stake)

26.07.2019 18:15
0

The pie doesn't change, and not only does the pie remain the same, but other people's pies don't magically grow while the one pie gets smaller.

Here's some math:

120mv hypothetically control 60% of the total stake.
If they are limited to 10 votes each, or 1:
3 account worth 40mv with 10 votes each will have the exact same 60% control and be able to distribute that 60% control over the top 30 witnesses, or 30 accounts each will have 1 vote each and they will still have exactly the same amount of vests and total 60% of all the vests.

26.07.2019 18:22
0

Your Proposal is a low budged fix and it could have an effect. I think what people don't get is that the vote is fixed and that splitting combined with a fixed vote makes the split a worse decision even though its the same pool size. It's a social proof and divisibility issue and not really trivial because of the "but its still the same size of the cake" argument.

the problem, in general, is that we deal with complicated issues and people can only like and agree on proposals they understand (even if they are wrong). This is why a DAO needs an unconscious voting. E.g. 90% of Steem-Users leaving is a democratic consensus, but this information wouldn't be reflected in the opinion of the remaining 10%, their opinion/votes would be completely worthless.

Ralph Merkel peer-reviewed by Buterin, Hoskinson and some others wrote a paper about DAOs and how a useful democratic consensus could be implemented. But since Steem organizations are not scientific at all arguing with them is a waste of time.

27.07.2019 09:01
1

Hadn't seen your answer at all. Yeah the idea was a small budget fix, especially since there are "more urgent" matters to attend in the mid term. In the long term those things have to be fixed with more scientific and proven solutions though.

I also agree on the DAO issue, but I think it's similar. First of all we get DAO, that's better than not having it, and then we can improve on it.

01.08.2019 17:34
1

You might be interested to see this post from Dan Larimer on Medium about decentralization, suggesting some plausible solutions
https://medium.com/@bytemaster/decentralizing-in-spite-of-pareto-principle-eda86bb8228b

30.07.2019 06:32
1

Interestingly he has the same opinion as I have in terms of the centralization of all the mentioned solutions. (PoW, PoS and DPoS).

Although the level on which he suggests to fix it is much more complex and long term than what I am trying to achieve with my proposal.

30.07.2019 13:19
1

I'm sure the top witnesses are determined by a very few whales, but I think the current system has some merit. What we need is for more people to actually vote as many will not have. The stake of the dolphins and orcas is growing and has some sway.

Have a !BEER

01.08.2019 17:28
1

I'm currently doing an analysis of the system, might make a post out of it next week.
One of the main issues really is that many many stakeholders are not voting at all. While many big stakeholders have a huge impact on the election of the top 20, the bigger problem is the possibility of a single stakeholder (steemit inc for example) to overthrow the entire system all at once.

I'm analyzing if removing the voting limit would help, but if people don't vote more it doesn't change anything at all (coverage doesn't seem to improve a lot).

Reducing the system to 10 votes, would allow Steemit to elect 10-15 top witnesses (which is better than 30 but still not satisfying).

01.08.2019 17:31
1

I just find there are lots of people I want to support and a lot of them are low on the rankings. I almost want to vote against some of the top witnesses :)

01.08.2019 17:34
0

Haha, yeah. But that would reduce the coverage further and make the system more fragile.

01.08.2019 17:36
0

To view or trade BEER go to steem-engine.com.

Hey @raycoms, here is your BEER token. Enjoy it!

01.08.2019 17:28
0

The top 20 witnesses will not be too happy about this because they will be afraid to lose their positions up there in the sun.

Wow, talk about foreshadowing.

13.03.2020 18:03
0