If you think that just voting is enough to ensure a system's decentralization, come look at US politics.
Vitalik Buterin on Laura Shin's Unchained: 39:33
I tend to agree.
Counterargument??? @Dan
Discussion on DPOS starts at 38:30
If you think that just voting is enough to ensure a system's decentralization, come look at US politics.
Vitalik Buterin on Laura Shin's Unchained: 39:33
I tend to agree.
Counterargument??? @Dan
Discussion on DPOS starts at 38:30
Ethereum's equivalent of voting is: what pool are you going to be mining on? They are not solving any centralization issues with DPOS that way. DPOS at least sets lower limit on number of block producers and give them equal power. So DPOS ends up being more decentralized in practice.
Casper introduces bonded staking where validators incur a direct monetary loss if they go against network consensus - although I'm not exactly sure how this consensus is determined. This provides an extra measure of security in addition to voting, which is vitalik's point - stake-weighted voting alone is not sufficiently secure enough to maintain these networks, and DPOS relies solely on this voting.
If you go against consensus in DPOS you are likely to be voted out. Plus, this article mentions that you must stake your tokens for at least 6 months in order to vote. This means that voters will have to bear the consequences of their voting in the market.
Ethereum will only have protection from going against consensus. It won't have anything that incentivizes voters to vote in a way that increases value of the network. While EOS has exactly that.
This is the only difference I see in DPOS vs the US political system. Perhaps it will be enough to make the system sufficiently secure.
EOS or Ethereum...The future will laugh for the ether... @helikopterben