scrobble.life
SCT.암호화폐.Crypto

Let's change 1SP 30 votes (current) to 1SP 1vote

@glory7@glory7 (76)2362d

Preparing for the Four-Party Dialogue as a representative from the Korean community(scheduled on 3/11(Wed) 11pm KST), I am focusing on specific issues that we may discuss, instead of vague things like "we love STEEM".

Background


I have read roadmaps from the participants(Steem foundation, Tron foundation, and Steem witnesses) but I have to admit that these ones are "good" in nature but definitely lack details. In other words, if these are all the opinions from participants I do not think we can reach any kind of agreement.

Compromises are needed to reach an agreement, and to get there we first need to check what are the "absolute NO" for each party. After eliminating them, then we may negotiate on other issues.

Analysis of the current situation


Justin says that he wants to be sure that his accounts(and funds) will not be locked up, like in 22.2.

From my point of view, leaving possibility of getting frozen again is absolute NO for Justin. It is scary even if it is a mere possibility, and he has actually seen that it might actually happen if super-majority of top 20 witnesses decides to do so.

And we know that under the current DPoS system, basically everything is possible if super-majority of top 20 witnesses agree. So giving up witness voting rights as some 22.2 community asks for would be absolute NO for him.

On the other hand, 22.2 witnesses worry that as we have seen in 22.5, Justin may take super-majority of top 20 and do whatever hard fork if Steem INC accounts' witness voting rights are not restricted.

  • In fact, the 22.2 witnesses made an urgent request to the Korean community (@proxy.token) that proxy.token would vote for 22.2 witnesses so that Justin may not hard fork, and proxy.token changed the votes so that 7 of top 20 witnesses are 22.2 witnesses.

Proposal: 1SP 1 vote


Achieved Goal: neither Justin/22.2 witnesses cannot do hard fork by having at least 5 among top 20 witnesses.

Proof(rough version):

Justin controls about 25% of total SP available. If he uses this voting right for 5 candidates, each get about 5%.

There can be at most 15 witnesses who may have more than 5%. Suppose there are 16 candidates with >5% witness votes. It means that the total witness votes > 16 * 5% + 5 * 5%(Justin's) = 105%, but the total witness votes should be at most 100%. Contradiction.

The other way is much easier. It is pretty clear that Justin cannot have 16 top witnesses with 25% share.

  • The beauty of this method is that it does not require any "trust" or "promise".

It makes sense


Almost all democracy adopts 1 person 1 vote, which is equivalent 1 steem 1 vote here.

And do you really think 1 steem 30 votes makes sense, when we vote for only 20 main witnesses? At least to me, it sounds like voting for 2 candidates for the presidential election.

Furthermore, it will alleviate the problem - de facto centrailziation - we already had. We all know that unless you get the vote from big whales like freedom (proxied to @pumpkin), it is very difficult to get into top 20.

  • In fact, @aggroed previously touted once that he was the only top 20 who didn't get vote from freedom(pumpkin) and blocktrades.

I believe that reducing the number of votes will help to achieve decentralization (if this is what you value).

Implementation details


I am not a programmer so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement 1 SP 1 vote, but I guess that it won't be too difficult.

And the above argument may be modified in other ways. For example:

  1. 1SP 1 vote, but you may vote for multiple candidates with lower power: say you have 100 SP and vote for aggroed and yabapmatt (Go Splinterlands!), then each get 50 SP worth of votes.

  2. 1SP 3~5 vote: as long as we keep the total votes low, we still solve the above problem.

Next topic: Powerdown


My next posting will be about Powerdown. More specifically,

  1. Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?

  2. Exchanges: should exchanges be allowed to powerdown faster?

That's it for today. I am looking forward to reading your feedback and thoughts.

  • @roalandp, @shadowspub(@guiltyparties), @justinsunsteemit: I would like you to review this suggestion before the meeting.

Comments · 35

  • @shortsegments(78)· 2353d

    I think reducing the Powerdiwn period is also a good idea, but I wish we could choose between 13 weeks and 4 weeks individually.

  • @shortsegments(78)· 2353d

    I think that this is a good idea. For all the reasons you mention. I think this is an important thing to change to help decentralize the blockchain.

  • @bitcoinroute(59)· 2359d

    Qué bueno ha sido leer esta propiedad y el feedback me deja mucho valor, además rescata mi esperanza de que hay más gente pensando en la oportunidad de elevar el tema de la descentralización por encima del conflicto para solucionar en lo posible el problema de fondo y no de forma.

  • @gorans(38)· 2361d

    Cool

  • @arcange(79)· 2361d

    Congratulations @glory7! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following categories:

    • Comments - Ranked 3 with 99 comments
    • Pending payout - Ranked 8 with $ 60,35
  • @okean123(66)· 2361d

    That's sounds like a rational and useful idea. I hope you will discuss is with the other witnesses.

    Oh and if anyone cares, I'm against faster power downs and I think giving exchanges special rights is a total no go.

  • @fluffcloud(51)· 2361d

    I prefer 1SP = 1 vote, multiple candidates. I don't think 3-5 votes is enough redundancy for passive users. Investors may want to vote for witnesses but they don't want to check their votes every day. At the same time members of a community may want to use all their votes to elect their own witness.

    I think disabled witnesses should be automatically excluded from the calculation and votes should be divided evenly among your voted active witnesses.

  • @thecryptodrive(70)· 2361d

    I’ve always been pro 4 week power down. I made a proposal about it. I don’t think the exchanges deserve a bailout but I do want a 4 week vesting period for our community. @thecallmedan spoke to me about 1 SP 1 Vote and I think that is fine also.

  • @whatsup(76)· 2361d

    I've seen this idea floating around, since it would have to be voted in by those with power and could potentially limit their power I find it unlikely this will ever get implemented.

    It's not harsh words for our current witnesses though, it's just how the world works, people will rarely vote to limit their own power.

  • @mehta(77)· 2361d

    I did not understand this from starting that why steemit provide 1 account can vote 30 witnesses. I completely disagree with this concept from starting. Now, this shows a real problem.

    Nice thought @glory7

    I completely 100% agree with 1 steem account should have only 1 witness vote.

  • @californiacrypto(63)· 2361d

    The 4 week power down that was discussed in the past by witnesses for all accounts not just exchanges sounds good. Half of the community were for it before, that could be implemented in return for all sock puppet witnesses being withdrawn. To start the de escalation. Lets work on making it work for the community. No one likes this situation and wants Steem back to running smoothly as it was before. Lets work on growing the chain not fighting each other. Everything started off on the wrong foot but if that can’t be forgotten I don’t see how this chain will continue.

  • @hodolbak(71)· 2361d

    good idea!^^

  • @zzings(76)· 2361d

    This opinion must be adopted.

  • @raycoms(71)· 2362d

    A few points:

    1. You don't need a super majority for a softfork to lock up stake. You just need a normal majority. (Longest chain wins).

    2. It's funny how many people throw around 1SP1 Vote, or reduce to three votes etc without doing the math right now.

    If we have 1 SP 1 Vote we will have much less vote overlap than what we have now which makes it much easier for a big stake to push multiple witnesses in the top 20. This way Justin would easy be able to get always not only 5 witnesses but a majority of witnesses in the top 20.

    This is not even close to decentralization.

  • @edicted(83)· 2362d

    1:1 voting is a great idea that I've been supporting as well. In your example, voting 2 witnesses would give them both 50%, but just like with upvoting content, it would be pretty easy to upvote one witness more than another.

    Powerdowns are another issue entirely. There's some talk of being charged a "burn fee" to powerdown early, so you'd get the money back faster but less of it.

    Personally I think we should have voting every month to determine if the powerdown time goes up or down. I also like the burn feature.

  • @steem-ua(64)· 2362d

    Hi @glory7!

    Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation! Your UA account score is currently 4.056 which ranks you at #2392 across all Steem accounts. Your rank has improved 89 places in the last three days (old rank 2481).

    In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 95 contributions, your post is ranked at #16.

    Evaluation of your UA score:
    • Some people are already following you, keep going!
    • The readers like your work!
    • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

    Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

  • @vikisecrets(80)· 2362d

    I think this is a worthwhile proposal to secure the blockchain. It would make HFs more difficult but at the same time increase security and decentralization.

  • @twinner(68)· 2362d

    Good Idea, another additional option would be that one can downvote Witnesses.

  • @theycallmedan(80)· 2362d

    I would be pro 4 week PD. Exchanges should not be allowed to PD quicker as then they can vote with users funds more easily.

  • @danmaruschak(76)· 2362d

    While I think it would make more sense for the number of votes to be less than 20 to prevent a single account from dominating the top 20 with their votes I think it doesn't really address the long term issues because whoever is behind that big account can theoretically just split their stake to multiple accounts that they control to achieve the same effect if they want to.

    It seems to me that one problem may be related to the "upvote only" nature of the witness voting system (and the SPS voting system) -- the only way to "vote out" a witness whose policies you don't like is to "vote in" someone you like better. I haven't thought through all the implications, but I wonder if adding "witness downvotes" (and maybe the ability to vote with percentages rather than just binary) would help -- then Steemit could decide to not upvote their own witnesses but could protect themselves by downvoting witnesses that run code that they have concerns about, which would be a de facto veto power for them given the large size of their stake.

    It might also be a good idea to limit the amount of SP that a witness vote can be worth, e.g. no matter how big the stake behind it the vote only counts for a maximum of x% of STEEM in circulation. (Although this basically has the same problem that I mentioned at the top, which is that a large account can theoretically circumvent it by splitting up their stake across multiple accounts.)

  • @nikv(73)· 2362d

    I agree. Justin should do as he pleases with his stake and all parties should be limited in their ability to control the witnesses. either 1 SP = 1 vote or each account may vote for no more than 5-10 witnesses. It makes a truly trustless system, which may mean that it becomes impossible to reach consensus but we'll find out in due course

  • @roomservice(62)· 2362d

    Nice constructive post. Really good to see Korean community involved. I'd love to see Korean witnesses comming in as well!

    I would support your proposal. Remember that most common user aren't able to research 30 witnesses for their votes, so that's another pro for 1 Steem = 1 Vote.

  • @martie7(62)· 2362d

    I am also tend to a similar offer. It seems that this is how the voting mechanism EOS works. The current system where each user can vote for 30 candidates looks silly. I don’t know who even came up with such a weird type of voting.

    Period: 13 weeks(current), 4 weeks, or 1 week?

    4 weeks looks like a compromise with which most participants agree.

  • @tradingideas(76)· 2362d

    I totally agree on your proposal.

    Posted using Partiko Android

  • @notconvinced(62)· 2362d

    I agree something needs to be done to bring Steem closer to decentralization. Currently it's simply modelled after America's non-Representative Republic where an Oligarch rules.

    I need to see some viable concrete plans to move forward with before I cast any votes.

    I like 1 user 1 vote that can be split up however the user wants. This vote needs to be equal for all users. Weighted stake voting for governance is not a representation of the platform.

    A four week powerdown period seems to be the best time period for the platform, imo.

    We need a better system in place so the community can veto a hardfork if we don't agree with the consensus. Being able to vote them out reactively isn't acceptable in my eyes.

    Free downvotes need to be abolished. We do need downvotes to combat theft, but not to attack others with.

    Exchanges should not operate by different rules than the community. The current situation shows that. They subverted the community and need to powerdown at the same pace we do. Starting at the current 13 weeks.

    There's more, but I understand babysteps is how it works.

    Witnesses, step up and start winning with ideas instead of letting your egos rule you.😀

  • @funtraveller(76)· 2362d

    I'm positive about 1SP 1Vote system as I agree with what you wrote.

    In that way, a superWhale can't fully influenced the top 30 witness spots equally. It's a clever way to improve the decentralized nature of steem.

    Thanks KR community for making a stand on this current issue.

  • @lordbutterfly(80)· 2362d

    Proposal: 1SP 1 vote

    It would be interesting if someone would take all the stake right now and show us how the current scenario would play out if 1SP - 1 vote was implemented.

  • @chekohler(76)· 2362d

    I'd also like to see an additional benefit for anyone who has staked for 13 weeks or more, perhaps your witness vote is at its full potential once you stake for a longer period of time. That would also reduce the chances of quick stake to change consensus

  • @bubke(61)· 2362d

    Right attitude and good proposition.

    In the short term we should consider there might be more disagreements in top 20 as a consequence which could slow down decisions but i see much more involvement in voting the right witnesses in the long term. I support the idea!

  • @d-pend(76)· 2362d

    I think you should be able to vote for as many witnesses (or as few) as you want, and the % will be divided among them. Ex: vote 2 witnesses @ 50% SP, or vote 100 witnesses @ 1% SP. I agree something ought to change from the current 30 votes but I leave it to programmers to crunch the math and explain what creates the most secure system.

  • @captainklaus(66)· 2362d

    Thanks @glory7, please everybody proceed in a constructive way!

    I am all for your witness voting policy. Powerdown as mentioed already should stay above 4 weeks. No special rules for exchanges, that would be unfair!

    I am also ok with the representative fom the corean community, as it is a strong player that went a bit unheard for quite some time.

    AND. Somebody has to trust somebody someday, otherwise this stalemate won't end, for the fear of the one or the other HF. So I guess some pride should be swallowed, and this will be done by the more reasonable party.

  • @dobartim(77)· 2362d

    This way of communication is great, we need business logic and positive energy that will make a synergy of success. In any case, if you asked me I would make democratic decentralization - one beneficiary - the same value of the vote and then we would have witnesses from all over the world. And witnesses can make money just like any other miner, who is more entitled to more money, etc.

  • @kgbinternational(67)· 2362d

    I think this is a great proposal to match up with related parties.

  • @abitcoinskeptic(75)· 2362d

    1 SP 1 vote is a goal worth discussion. But there should be a lot of discussions before it is changed. Also let's consider it for SPS, too. In any case, if it is changed to this and Tron can still vote, they can over-rule any hard fork forever using a stake that was supposed to be non-governance according to a lot of people. Remove their say in the matter and there is no way that will get close to 50% support.

    Power down change SPS result was about 49-51 to change it from 13 to 4 weeks. This suggests that people want it reduced, but even reducing it to 4 weeks is too much, nevermind reducing it to 1 week. Perhaps it could be left alone or reduced to somewhere around 5-12 weeks? The exchanges definitely should not get a 'specialized' quicker power down, but there should be options available for all to permit this.

    I'm happy to see a discussion about downvote seemingly off the table for now. I personally think we should wait until after SMT is implemented to look into changing the inflation distribution model again.

    There is a lot of disagreement with the idea of including 1 of those parties as the Korean group. For example, the USA group or the EU group or even the latin/spanish group may represent more SP more individuals and more content on Steem. It is an unnatural division and seems to be only happening because the Koreans have unionized under SCT. Any rights gained will likely be immediately taken away.

    Just my thoughts. Good luck to all with the 4 party meeting.

  • @jaydih(72)· 2362d

    Thank you for addressing one of the most important points of all which led to this chaotic event.

    1sp 1 witness vote indeed!!