[LIPS] [LiskHQ/lisk] Solutions to improve Lisk DPoS (#353)

Juan Gonzalez juan at lightcurve.io
Wed Feb 6 03:32:38 EST 2019


Forwarding to the lips mailing list so we have this there as well

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:58 AM reaper699 <notifications at github.com> wrote:

> "The Lightcurve Science team has just opened the discussion for our 11th
> LIP – Change to one vote per account in our DPoS.
> " so the science team has been working very hard and lisk HQ has been
> spending alot of time and money on them only to come up with this ? very
> disappointing to say the least . Lets not forget who the ones are that are
> pushing to change the DPOS system, its the ones who are not forging, what
> will these "delegates" do when they are not included in the new system?
> push again and complain again when they are not forging ? Every person had
> the right to invest in lisk based on the DPOS system that was laid out to
> us investors in the early stage, to change this system now is to do no
> better than the rest of the failed DPOS coins that changed their voting
> process after raising funds. HQ dont forget where you got all your money
> from ! all your money came from most of the forging delegates who bought
> into your platform based on the DPOS system you designed as we all saw an
> opportunity for a good investment ! to change that and take that away is
> not very honest in terms of business. my personal opinion is that it is a
> terrible idea , things like ( Lisk incubators ) would not be able to happen
> if all delegates are sharing 90% plus! you will turn your platform into a
> Oxy or rise or LWF joke ! where is the incentive for the delegates to
> create, publish, market if they are all competing against higher sharing!
> this takes the value down the drain! I think the science team can at least
> come up with something better then supposedly spending months researching
> Arks platform ! its a joke
> A more promising platform would be rotation of delegates that go down! ie,
> someone misses a block, second time they get swopped out for someone above
> 101 for a period of 24 hours, get cycled back and if still missing then get
> cycled out for another 24 hours
> but to change the whole system for a select few that are not happy they do
> not forge is ridiculous to say the least!
> I have been observing the other systems for months ! and I can tell you
> now that the current systems allows the entire list of delegates to work
> together against bad players! example: some other DPOS systems that use
> this 1 vote method , I wont name which one, but when a delegate is sharing
> 95% , his incentive to keep his node up is not very big, therefor some
> nodes (and this is fact) are red on mainnet for months! and there is
> nothing the community can do because all the votes are coming from outside
> and people who vote externally are not checking or caring about the health
> of the network at all
> so If lisk wishes to "stale mate" the network by choosing this method then
> go ahead @mat <https://github.com/mat> because the reality is that
> firstly nodes will get voted in because of their sharing and nothing else
> (greed ) then who is to say 1 person doesnt create 10 nodes and market them
> all individually to share 95% , of course they will get votes , then one
> day when they decide to not care about the nodes and they have millions
> voted against them, the network will be a failure of red or down nodes
> because it will be impossible to unvote them as they will have too many
> votes! at least in the current system the delegates can work together
> politically to help the network! take this away and you dont have DPOS ,
> but instead you are basically writting the future of the network and then
> cementing the delegates in place for ever
> How often do ark Delegates change ? how is 1 vote in any way contributing
> to "decentralization" when it puts the networks health at risk ?
> is this change for the good of the network or is this just to please some
> delegates who never invested early enough and worked hard to become
> delegates . il let the community decide
>
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/LiskHQ/lisk/issues/353#issuecomment-460920219>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB2X08tFj2dWbI2dgjzc4Od-HUouloOks5vKn0VgaJpZM4LKAVd>
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lisk.io/pipermail/lips_lists.lisk.io/attachments/20190206/52a02a27/attachment.html>


More information about the LIPS mailing list