Author Topic: Proof of Stake is currently Pay-to-Win, what should we do about it?  (Read 3620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
I agree.
That's why I think some steps must be taken like...

1) Dynamic number of delegates so more opportunities for the masses to be delegates and not only the few....  https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5317.0
2) max delegates per person (I don't know how it is possible) maybe keyhotee would help or max delegates per wallet or something like that.... So it will get't at least very difficult to get centralized from a few rich actors....
3) Choose a percentage of standby delegates (like 20% or 30%) randomly on each block. (so anybody from the masses has the opportunity to participate actively )
4)......
5) make your suggestions.....
6)...
.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 07:50:05 am by liondani »

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
This is a question to the community about Proof of Stake in general.

I realize DPoS has delegates and that we can shuffle the delegates as a way to keep it somewhat decentralized. It's still Pay-to-Win as a distribution model but it's not as bad as Bitcoin because at least there is some small statistical possibility that you could become a delegate.

The reason Pay-to-Win is a problem is because the gaming community does not generally view Pay-to-Win as fair. Because it is not viewed as fair play it is not considered fun and as a result the games which seem more fair tend to attract the attention of the masses.

Bringing Bitshares technology to the masses and the problem of Ultimate Champions

How do we market Bitshares technology to the global masses? The global masses all want to feel like they have a chance to win and if the only way to play the game is to pay and the people who pay the most win by default every time then the previous winners become ultimate champions who no one can afford to defeat.

Worst of all it can open Bitshares up to the 1% attack where whoever has the most money on earth could simply buy the stakes all up. I recognize this attack is really only theoretical and rhetorical but it means if it's a guaranteed victory for rich players via Pay-to-Win then it's only a matter of time before centralization of wealth does occur.

Pros and Cons of the Pay-to-Win distribution model

There are Pros and Cons to keeping the Pay-to-Win. In the short term it could make some of the large holders on the forum very rich a lot quicker and easier. In general a person seeking to get rich may not care about the future of the technology itself and may just be waiting to cash out when traditional banks figure out they have to buy the shares, Bitcoins, or whatever.

On the other hand the long term consequence of Pay-to-Win is that you will not be able to market it to the masses. People outside of the first world do not want Pay-to-Win and people within the first world who don't have very much to pay still want a chance to win.

So this post is to initiate a discussion on the flaw of PoS (or feature if you're trying to get rich quick) which is PtW.  What should be done about this or should we embrace it?



« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 03:52:02 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads