Why 101 for DPOS? Well, its less centralized than six! But anyway, going from 1 to 2 delegates doubles your security. Going from 100 to 101 adds less than 1%. Yet each delegate added increases the cost linearly. So its simply a case of diminishing returns on how much you want to pay for security. Going beyond 101 simply doesn't buy you much. We chose it as the sweet spot, but 50 or 150 would still be reasonable.
You are assuming with your figures that each delegate is unique. It is my understanding that there is no way to prove the delegates are independent. Furthermore, I don't agree with your rational that limiting delegates is "a case of diminishing returns" because the cost of paying for security in PoS is negligible. The
ONLY reason PoW exists in Bitcoin or PoS exists in NXT is to prevent
sybil attacks. It seems that since DPoS cannot prevent such attacks that it is
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED and therefore, Bitshares is
NOT A CRYPTOCURRENCY.
Another factor he recognized is that there is really very little damage that a rogue delegate can do. Producing an invalid block simply gets her fired. Recognizing that everything a delegate does is inspectable and detectable, the shareholders can quickly detect any misbehaviors and summarily fire the offender. Again, stakeholders control their own destiny.
You are assuming that all stakeholders will be diligently watching the chain for bad actors. I can guarantee you this isn't the case. Of course, there is "little damage
A rogue delegate can do", but as I assume you know, the issue lies in
multiple delegates colluding together and the fact that with DPoS it is
IMPOSSIBLE to know how many delegates one individual controls.
It's entirely possible for the community of stakeholders to decide that, for a period of time, they want to hire the services of an individual or small business that brings so much value to the ecosystem that its worth assigning more than one delegate slot to that individual. Think of your favorite big name in the crypto industry. What if the block chain could hire her at the expense of multiple slots? Would the shareholders want to do that? Should they have the authority to do that?
You are doing so at the expense of chain security. This is a
TERRIBLE IDEA.
So your concern is really a harmless startup transient. Security is already far better than it was for Bitcoin at this stage in its development.
No, it's not. PoW and PoS will always be more decentralized and secure than DPoS because it is mathematically provable through PoW and PoS that the chain is secured by a verifiable amount of hashpower or stake.
If I want to attack Bitcoin's PoW algo, I have to acquire 51% of the hashpower.
If I want to attack NXT's PoS algo, I have to acquire 51% of the stake.
If I want to attack Bitshare's DPoS algo,
ALL I have to do is convince the stakeholders to vote me in.
This
will become a bigger problem if the Bitshares ecosystem grows and it becomes
more profitable for a malevolent actor to pursuade stakeholders to vote them into multiple delegate positions.
Can you please answer my previous questions?
1 - How is DPoS an "improved" version of PoS seeing that it is clearly a more centralized consensus mechanism?
2 - How does Bitshares rationalize that it is "decentralized" when it is susceptible to and
previously undergone a Sybil attack, where actually, Bytemaster voted ONE person into FIVE delegate positions?
3 - Can you please prove for all parties that this attack on your consensus mechanism has been thwarted and that this individual no longer controls a delegate? Please provide verifiable blockchain proof.
4 - Are you of the same opinion as Toast,
that multiple delegates being controlled by one individual aren't a problem? If you agree, please explain why having any type of consensus mechanism is needed for Bitshares at all. If not, why does one of Bitshares' devs mislead people to believe otherwise.