4 ms·

Kind of funny the goal of crypto was a total new, decentralized, democratic system, and what we end up (to solve the scale issue), is yet another class system w

Kind of funny the goal of crypto was a total new, decentralized, democratic system, and what we end up (to solve the scale issue), is yet another class system where you can vote only in proportion to your wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification

jetpackjoe 6y ago
This, I find, to be the biggest flaw with crypto in general.
rodiger 6y ago
Mining isn't exactly a fair shake either... at least in PoS more network participants are even able to "vote". Staking better aligns incentives when compared to mining and most other alternatives.
mattwilsonn888 6y ago
This is a massive and common misunderstanding. Publishing a block is NOT voting on its validity. Every node, regardless of stake accrued 'votes' (the correct word is 'chooses') independently of the validity of blocks just like in Bitcoin. Blockchains that allow protocol changes via votes are an option, and how you quantify votes is a parameter, but PoS is not tied to being a government token, and 'votes' on forks (its really not a vote as both protocols exist after a fork) are made by large and small holders alike. It has nothing to do with amount of currency owned.
jayd16 6y ago
Yes, with POS aren't we just back to a (now programatically enforced!) cabal of bankers that control the money system?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Nope, it's still distributed consensus rather than centralized. If one banker stops being nice, he'll loose all his funds. The current system either ignores people not-being-nice or ejects them, but they'll never lose what they made. Compared to PoS where the biggest incentive is to be nice.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    The fear is that there will be a powerful in-group that has majority control, not just a single bad actor.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that a problem shared with PoW?
      - jayd16 6y ago
        I would argue that POW tends towards specialization of the hardware, congregating power in few hands, so yes. Yes it is.

jetpackjoe 6y ago

This, I find, to be the biggest flaw with crypto in general.

rodiger 6y ago

Mining isn't exactly a fair shake either... at least in PoS more network participants are even able to "vote". Staking better aligns incentives when compared to mining and most other alternatives.

mattwilsonn888 6y ago

This is a massive and common misunderstanding. Publishing a block is NOT voting on its validity. Every node, regardless of stake accrued 'votes' (the correct word is 'chooses') independently of the validity of blocks just like in Bitcoin. Blockchains that allow protocol changes via votes are an option, and how you quantify votes is a parameter, but PoS is not tied to being a government token, and 'votes' on forks (its really not a vote as both protocols exist after a fork) are made by large and small holders alike. It has nothing to do with amount of currency owned.

jayd16 6y ago

Yes, with POS aren't we just back to a (now programatically enforced!) cabal of bankers that control the money system?

capableweb 6y ago
Nope, it's still distributed consensus rather than centralized. If one banker stops being nice, he'll loose all his funds. The current system either ignores people not-being-nice or ejects them, but they'll never lose what they made. Compared to PoS where the biggest incentive is to be nice.
- jayd16 6y ago
  The fear is that there will be a powerful in-group that has majority control, not just a single bad actor.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that a problem shared with PoW?
    - jayd16 6y ago
      I would argue that POW tends towards specialization of the hardware, congregating power in few hands, so yes. Yes it is.