I liked the new concept of Daniel Larimer, I guess @dan in blurt.
I liked the fact that he wants to give the power to more valuable members to the community. Of course proof of stake supporters may tell me that's not the right thing to do, but it's clear why they will tell so.
I don't even know if that will work for him or not, because we used to see him creating a project after another and jumping to the new one and leaving the old. But who knows, maybe he's the crypto hero. lol
I noticed that voice didn't work, or at least it didn't do well. I don't remember what happened with that super social media, but it seems failing. The same about fractally, I see them not creating videos on youtube for months and for some reason I didn't look into it. Maybe busy.
But I wanted to share it here and hear from blurt community, especially : @rycharde, @practicalthought, @famigliacurione, and @offgridlife.
I watched that before - as YT reminded me by starting near the end. I smiled - maybe Dan reads me posts - probably doesn't - either way, his system is kinda similar to how the Venetians elected their Doge. Not wholly, but the mixture of random selection and elections is similar - iterated.
https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf
;-)
Everything can be gamed through collusion. In Venice, they were all known people with known family connections - and no family member could vote for someone in their own family. Try that with anon accounts!
But this is a step in the right direction - to break the symmetry of stake-driven economy leading to political control.
That's exactly why I liked the idea, and I'm not a fun of proof of stake at all !
Without stakes there is no economy.
Yet the stakes do not generate the economy.
Just like the real world - banks do not create the economy, coz if they did then everyone would starve... oh...hold on! ;-)
I only know of one central banking system that worked - and that was just before the mighty USD was forced upon it - and they took great care to distinguish productive economy from money-managers like private banksters.
I'm not a Larimer fan. He knew the right things to say, but his actions never matched. His idea of a community is one where he can fleece them, move on to create again and if you want to be in community again with him better reach for that wallet.
Right, is like two people - the concepts and the products. Noticed that for some years.
The reality of any algorithm is NOT what the designer expects but what actually happens in the long run.
The incentives will define that end.
But what about the idea he's talking about. I shared the video mostly to hear from you about the idea that the most valuable people will earn the most, not the most staked ones.
I don't have time to watch it and will concede it wouldn't be high on my priority list simply because I don't trust Larimer. He is genius at constructing narratives that overshadow what I consider deeply flawed loopholes that exploit.
I'll also wonder without watching the video what incentive the folks who would supposedly hold the stake would have to become the stakeholders. You mention that
and by extension I would suggest that the only major stakeholders in such a system that negates the power of stake would mostly consist of the ones participating in the initial setup who got theirs for close to free.
Congratulations, your post has been upvoted by @dsc-r2cornell, which is the curating account for @R2cornell's Discord Community.
Enhorabuena, su "post" ha sido "up-voted" por @dsc-r2cornell, que es la "cuenta curating" de la Comunidad de la Discordia de @R2cornell.