that's why we must not fall in the trap to decide again (and with pressure) how much witnesses to use.
Let the number be dynamic and the decision be taken from the shareholders, the market, or the code.... or all together... but not only from one guru or a community that could be take a right decision now but prove to be wrong tomorrow when  circumstances change...  We must be more flexible!

Quote from: monsterer on September 23, 2015, 08:31:20 pm

As I understand your proposal, this only makes a difference in terms of the visibility of delegates to vote for, rather than eligibility thereof?

Given that, I can't see how attack cost is exponential, or even linear - it seems to be just a plain old constant

My original proposal was that the system would be automated to vote for highest collateral bids by default setting.  It would only revert to the current system if users exercised the ability to manually vote.  If you wanted that increased cost of attack, you would have to remove the ability to manually vote.  I made the proposal the way I did because I'm not sure of everyone's consensus on removing manual voting, even though manual voting is probably a negative to leave in.  Due to voter apathy, the system would most likely always run solely by collateral bids.  At that point you have to think, why leave voting in at all? 

I feel Bytemaster is too attached to voting so I had to make the suggestion the way I did as a compromise solution.  I would personally probably remove manual voting.

My sense is that there's not a great likelihood IDentabit will work well as a name for this purpose.  So here are my entries for an alternative.

Solara (so-lah-ra)
currency: solar (so-lahr) or sol

Spectrum or Spectra
currency: spectra or spec

Radius
currency: rad