Furthermore, if the selected set of delegates is short lived, then any disruption caused by selecting a dishonest nodes in the previous set will be minimal, as transactions that failed which are deemed legitimate can simply be re-presented a short time later against a new set of delegates.
The higher the frequency of delegate election, the worse the service they can provide
True (for various reasons such as ratios relating to propagation, denial-of-service, etc).
- at one extreme, the service is completely trust based and very efficient and at the other extreme there is no advantage at all to having delegates but they are completely trustless.
False assumptions galore.
Wait for the white paper. Amazing to me that what I invented seems so obvious in hindsight yet it isn't obvious to you all. Interesting.
All discussion about delegation should stop now. Otherwise I will be forced to delete some posts. We are cluttering this thread with too much detail.
Wait for the white paper then you will all understand.
Continuing discussion here as Anonymint doesn't want to continue the discussion in his own thread.