RE: The History of Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS)
Yet, as I hope you’ve learned from this post, every existing blockchain network, including the Bitcoin network, can freeze the funds in an account, as long as all the block producers on that network agree to do so. All they have to do is agree not to include the transactions into their blocks.
You are comparing Bitcoin to Steem which I think is a bit misleading considering the scale of both chains and different mechanisms they operate on. It's not that easy.
If something similar to SegWit (theoretically speaking) would happen on Steem, the implementation would be instant because there is a huge centralization of power. This means a simple culture war could lead many people to lose their stakes by a HF/SF.
However, on the Bitcoin chain, SegWit transactions are yet to reach 100%, even after years of its implementation.
You're talking about the ease of hardforking Steem versus Bitcoin. You are correct that it's much easier to hardfork Steem.
But freezing of transactions has nothing to do with hardforking. The block producers just have to agree not to put the transaction in the blocks they make and the funds are frozen. No hardfork is required.
So the technical ability to do this is simply a function of the number of block producers that need to agree to do it. Because of pooled mining on Bitcoin, there's not a lot of coordination required (there's just a few major mining cartels or at least that was true last time I checked). Now you could argue that someone could fire up a huge mining pool of their own and get their transaction published that way, but that's not a small undertaking.
I was speaking about the first version of "SegWit" which did not require a hard fork. The second one "SegWit2x" does, but wasn't pushed because of a lack of consensus and other technical disagreements.
Which lead us to my point. Even though there are concepts and technical similarities as you stated between the chains, one can mistakenly conclude that our situation is the same as the one on the bitcoin chain.
We should not, in my opinion, deal with the issue with an approach that plays more on the similarities of technical concepts, but rather on the different values and effectiveness of these concepts on different architectures and blockchain models.
That transaction consensus constitutes a higher threat to chains that are highly similar to our chain, thus, such technicals characteristics need to be taken into consideration while approaching the question of freezing stakes or any other form of transaction refusal. As you can see, a technical concept can carry different weights according to which environment you put it in hence why a precision could be made when writing about such a thing.
No need for any such consideration, this feature of refusing to interact/transact exists in all manners and shapes and it all comes from people forming a consensus/agreement to not transact or ignore certain funds/users or transactions. It doesn't matter what the agreement forms over, the point is, as he's made it again and again, that regardless of the protocol people can form agreements preceding any protocols, rules or stipulations.
I beg to differ, such consideration is important to anyone who wants to invest or build a new blockchain. If specific types of chains are more prone to the abuse of "transaction refusal" or other attacks, then yes I think it's important to mention it even if the technical definition of such mechanism is the same on all types of chains.
You can't just add a DPOS and POW chains in the same bin when it comes to the potential risks such a mechanism could represent.
The point is that there's absolutely nothing to consider that would make a difference because in either system it wouldn't take anything but the agreement of a few people.
That "few of people" can be easily achieved on Steem than Bitcoin. That's my point. Think about it in terms of risk management for example.
The number of block producers that need to coordinate to refuse a transaction is about the same both for Steem and Bitcoin.
On Bitcoin 15 mining pools control 91.8% of the hashrate vs the 15 top witnesses positions in Steem that are needed for consensus.
So in terms of the number of actors that need to coordinate the risk is about equal...the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".
the difference is in the cost to carry out such an "attack".I agree. Even 1 person, as long as you have the resources, in both chains.
Thank you,
15 witnesses that would surely risk their positions much more than the 15 mining pools, should they do anything that their voters don't agree with, whereas on Bitcoin the risk is much more indirect and endlessly less costly.
No it can't. Heck, the distribution of coins is still better on Steem than Bitcoin, and considering that the trend is for ever increasing concentration of coins into fewer and fewer hands and the same for hash power I don't know what you think "fewer" people means, and that's despite the fact that regardless of protocol or coin, people can cooperate to ignore transactions without any problems what so ever.
the distribution of coins is still better on Steem than BitcoinWhat do you mean exactly by distribution? people who are using the coin, people who are mining or getting or using the coin? those are different chains, and the consensus for transaction refusal is not reached in the same way even if the technicality of it (transaction refusal) is the same.
`considering that the trend is for ever increasing concentration of coins into fewer and fewer hands and the same for hash power``
Unless those people are using nuclear fusion and not seeling anything to cover the energy cost.
You are mixing Bitcoin (the coin) with the question of hash power and transaction refusal consensus.
people can cooperate to ignore transactions without any problems what so everA known fact.