DPoS is by far the most efficient way of governance, however we can all agree that there's always a possibility that a few wealthy individuals can come to an agreement and play against the network. Thankfully $Hive has the real crypto OGs mostly working voluntary to align ideology with technology, making it unlikely to go against something they too believe in.
But I wouldn't be so sure that to be the case with any other network.
Do you think we should increase the number of consensus witnesses?
Of course, power always consolidates. The problem most make is they compare DPoS to game theory instead of comparing it to what is actually out there. PoW, PoS, and DPoS all have the same attack vector which is powerful people colluding to try and buy out the network for whatever their reason may be.
It's all about reducing the possibility for such an event to occur in the first place. Since there's no premine we should be fine... In contrary, we can always sell the stake to highest bidder a move on :D
Would be awesome to see you talking with Lex Fridman. 😃
I was drawn to poker due to the strategy and ability to spend an unreal amount of hours studying game theory. What "should" happen due to it being the most optimal on paper. I would talk to anyone willing to listen when it comes to governance on blockchains, strategy, etc. My cat is well versed in such things haha.
🤣🤣🤣 And it doesn't complain!
Lex would be fucking perfect, or maybe #uponlytv by Kobie.
That should help us reduce misunderstandings regarding DPoS.
Fuck, we need to lvl up the hustle.