What about bytemaster idea on the mumble session about a reputation system?...
so the witnesses could "win"/deserve his place putting his reputation on stake/risk instead of his money/bts...
As bytemaster mentioned, reputation has more value over collateral and it gives the opportunity to "poor" witnesses also to participate and not only "sharks" ...
I'd rather have a secure system that runs on game theory than an insecure system designed for poor people...
Anything PoS derived is already an aristocracy in the first place. Trying to make it not one just removes the game theory elements that make it function at all. We already see how this works in Bitcoin, how it works in theory, but as soon as you introduce mining pools, a separate layer of abstration is applied that makes the system not function anything like the PDF describes.
If you wanted to introduce reputation in DPoS, it would have to be applied equally with stake then divided by two to average it or some other ratio instead of applying reputation as the last layer that takes precedent over everything else.
It's easy to create an inefficient Rube Goldberg machine once you get to the level of arbitrary reputation variables instead of simply relying on game theory. Blockchains work best when hedging finite resources as a backbone of the system. Collateral is a finite resource and reputation is a pseudo finite resource that's much easier to game than collateral. Due to this, if you were to introduce reputation at all, which I'm not sure it's a good idea, it would need to be something like a 30/70 split with stake being the 70% of the equation. Once again, they would need to be averaged on the same layer and not with reputation taking precedent as the last layer.
Next time you talk to Bytemaster in audio, have him address the Liberty Reserve issue as well. How if a govt entity comes after it, the system needs to be resilient in losing many delegates at once and recovering without having to go through a pope (bytemaster) annointing process. It needs to be able to recover with ease assuming this website and Bytemaster don't exist at all, meaning the delegate selection process needs to be much more automated. If someone passes a law against Bitshares, you need to be able to say, well, I'm not operating that, it just exists out there like a virus. Bitshares doesn't operate like a virus, that's the problem. It won't attract big dollars until it does because that means it can't be legislated out of existence with ease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve