It was always centralized though, that's just DPoS. As Aggroed said, he was the only consensus witness that got there without @freedom's vote. Justin or Freedom, either way, no witnesses were picked by the "community" but by a plutocracy of few very influential individuals that decide who is or isn't a witness. The little people might have had a smidge of an effect.
I'm not on Justin's side, but I get sick of the BS. All of this DPoS stuff is centralized. Its a step in the right direction, but if I am to have faith in Hive I need to see changes to how witnesses are selected and I need to see a change away from a plutocracy. I'm waiting to see that, until then, my faith in either chain is gone and I'm stuck believing in just BTC and ETH.
I hope the best for both chains. I hope Hive goes well, and I think it would be cool to see these two chains experiment with wildly different designs and see what the global population thinks about the two different paths.
BUT I will say, major props for being opposed to the blacklist. That shit is stupid. I actually defended the right of the devs to do it in a comment, because, well, no one has a right to have coins on a new network if the founders don't want them to have it. But I still think it is a bad PR move.
Yeah, bad PR move, but you're right, it's all voluntary and no one is entitled to anything.
Have any ideas? I've been working on blockchain governance stuff for a couple years now with eosDAC, EOS Foundation, and such. It's not an easy problem to solve. Easy to critique and complain about, difficult to make better. Most solutions not fully thought out fail due to sybil attack.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What I feel is the most fair thing to do is have network influence be based on stake length *stake amount. This allows for someone with 50k HIVE to have the same influence over the network as the person with 500K HIVE if the person with 50K HIVE is willing to stake for 10x the length of time.
The Polkadot blockchain is implementing this design for on-chain governance, and I think its a great way to do it. This allows people to have a larger share in decisions if they are willing to stick it out longer. I believe it would be good for the price too, because I bet you'd find a lot of people locking up their HIVE for years in order to have more influence.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not a bad idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit