Coup d'etat: a hostile takeover of the network like Sun Yuchen(Justin's real name) did in the first day by filling the whole
Security Council
(How I call the Top 20 witnesses) with his minion-witnesses;Civil War: the current state of Steem where two parties fight for control of a Blockchain that supposed to be secure against centralizing authorities. One side has 20 minion-witnesses servicing a single entity while the other is a coalition of almost everybody else.
I posted about this same subject before but here I think those ideas can have larger impact as I want to see people discussing them and developers to consider them when preparing the next HF.
The Proposals:
Vote Dilution
- The idea is to divide the value of a witness vote by the amount of voted witnesses.
- If you have
20 SP
and vote for one witness, it's a20 SP
for it. - If you vote for 5 witnesses, it's a
4 SP
vote for each. - If you vote for 20 witnesses, each gets a
1 SP
vote.
- If you have
- With such mechanism in place, a new takeover attempt would be
as hard as accumulating 20 times more SP than the whole Steem community
. - The more witnesses you vote, less value your vote has to each of them.
- A giant whale like @steemit would be able to put one or two witnesses in the Security Council, but with each witness the difficulty to insert the next increases exponentially.
Vote Expiration
- The idea is to make votes for witnesses expire after a while.
- The idea is to prevent dead accounts from influencing Steem GovernanceTM.
- Votes are automatically uncasted after a year.
- Can be 6 months, 54 weeks, whatever time developers think is more adequate.
- Votes can be renewed before expiration, resetting the expiration clock.
- Vote renewal before expiration shows the user is still active.
- Proxy setup does not expire.
- Good for cold storages.
- But every proxy-chain must have an active user at the end of it, because his votes will still expire when not renewed.
Chronological Protection
Personally I don think this is important, but no harm in sharing an idea.
- The idea is to prevent another hostile
Blitzkrieg
from happening to Steem.- All SP influencing the account, acquired by either Power Up of Delegation should have a 2.5-day gap before beginning to affect Witness vote positively;
- Power-down, undelegation or uncasted votes have immediate effect on witnesses.
- In case of Vote Expiration proposal above being implemented, vote renewal shall suffer no effect from Chronological Protection. Only votes casted or when they are recasted after expiration.
I am sorry if I made any grammar mistake. English is not my first language.
Sorry if I also said anything that might sound stupid above. It was not my intention.
I upvoted this post because it was full of new ideas and we need new ideas here to find a solution to our current impasse.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is basically exactly what I think is needed except I'd coin the option of letting people choose how much MVEST out of their total MVEST pool goes to a witness they vote.
This give users choice to support some witnesses more than others while still providing the same protection as splitting vote weight evenly.
We could even go one step further and do both, So you can specify a custom MVEST amount with a witness vote and any remaining MVESTS in the pool is split evenly among the remaining votes that don't have custom amounts set.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Indeed a mechanism should be in place to choose the percentage to allocate.
But since I had a small witness running(I shut it down for now as the Civil War stalemate progresses). Perhaps setting a minimum of 1%for each witness, which would put an automatic limit to 100 witnesses each profile can vote for.
When voting for 100 witnesses, it will have to evenly distributed while less witnesses voted gives the profile higher ranges to choose for each.
You have to agree that a system where each profile can cast 33.3% more equal votes than positions in the "Security Council"(top 20). Of course it was a matter of time before a centralizing entity could buy a lot of Steem and set the whole Security Council with his minion-witnesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, some kind of limit would be good, a minimum of 1% sounds good, there really isn't a use case for allowing unlimited votes in reality, it sounds nice to have but it's quite unnecessary.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit