Actually, you can't remove them from power because Bitshares DPoS is vulnerable to Sybil attacks and even if it wasn't, you still don't know what potential voting alliances exist to manipulate the elections via strategic voting. 13% of stake in DPoS allows for them to control over 50% of the elections via strategic voting.
13% stake can be easily overruled by the remaining 87% of stakeholders. Most delegates are known people in the community and Sybil has been mostly mitigated. If someone formed a strategic alliance to rig the voting then that would be dumb on their part, because it would greatly and negatively affect the value of their stake once the other shareholders caught on. They would certainly catch on eventually.. secrets are impossible to keep secret if they involve multiple parties.
Lol Except for that one time when one person convinced everybody he was five independent delegates/witnesses... Except for that one time when god knows who else has managed to convince everyone he was multiple independent parties. The fact is that it is impossible to mitigate Sybil attacks in Bitshares without requiring every single delegate/witness to submit their government ID. Even with this enacted you cannot prevent multiple individuals from forming strategic voting blocks. These strategic voting blocks will always be present in Bitshares and everybody won't catch on to their existence. This is the inherit problem with DPoS verses PoS.
With PoS, you actually have to own the stake to control the chain.
With DPoS, you only have to convince others with stake to vote you into power to control the chain. This makes Bitshares' DPoS susceptible to these types of strategic voting attacks which are bound to happen. The fact that some members of your community, like Roach, think that "corporate fascism" existing on Bitshares' blockchain is a good thing just shows how removed the system really is from the original intent of crypto.
I call them liars, cheaters and thieves because they have changed the terms on their investors so many times that I've lost count. The change of terms is always to their benefit. If you can't see this, you're deluding yourself.
All changes needed stakeholder approval. It is unfortunate you didn't get your way and don't agree with the direction the project has gone, however it is ridiculous that you cry about it for the rest of Bitshares' existence. There are many people that have been around since day one that do not feel this way, so the fact that you think they are "liars, cheaters and thieves" is your personal opinion that you are trying to convey as fact.
All changes didn't get "stakeholder approval". A lot of them were unanimously declared by the Larimers.
They also continually attempt to market Bitshares as "Safer than a Swiss Bank" and "Your own Fort Knox!" when they know it is subject to the flaw mentioned below.
No one has used that terminology in a very long time, and your use of the word "continually" in that statement makes the statement a lie. It is simply an exaggeration of a past gripe you have with the way Bitshares was originally marketed. These slogans have not been used for a long time, and Bitshares is more careful nowadays to be politically correct.
What is a long time to you? Nine months ago?
BitShares.
Safer than a Swiss Bank.
(Ask me why!)
Regardless of the exact terminology they use, they portray Bitshares as "safer" than traditional methods of storing your USD (or other assets) when it is in fact extremely dangerous for individuals to do so. If the marketcap of Bitshares ever drops below the entire market capitalization of all the bitAssets, the holders of such bitAssets will not be able to redeem them at face value, because the contracts will be under-collateralized. This means there will be a run on all assets as people attempt to recover 70 cents on the dollar, 60 cents on the dollar, 50 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, 10 cents on the dollar, all the way down to zero. They market Bitshares as such because they only care about their own bottom line and not the risk that they are inducing to others.
All cryptocurrencies are inherently risky. There is a risk that any cryptocurrency's value on any certain day can plummet to zero. To fault Bitshares specifically for this risk when all other cryptocurrencies share the same risks is blasphemous. The Bitshares community has addressed black swan events. ... Although the risk exists, it is in my opinion unlikely that it will ever happen. Cryptocurrencies with the volume, liquidity, and market cap of Bitshares simply do not lose over 50% of their value in one day.
All cryptocurrencies do not expose their holders the same systematic risk that exists in Bitshares' bitAssets. That's right Bitshares simply does not lose over 50% of its value in one day. It loses 34% of its value in one day like we just saw a few days ago.