Lets say 5 to 10 whales have enough supply to grab sit #80 that means all they have to do is put the same weight on 21 more delegates of choice and they will also have sit 81-101.
I hope you saw my post on the last page?
I did, there was nothing in-regards to my statement above. My concern is not for a "51%" attack. Its the fairness of delegation system.
If a group of whales coordinate and put all their voting weight on a specific delegate to get him spot #80, that means they have the ability to do the same for spot 81-101. The closer they get to #1 spot the more delegate spots they will own.
Yes. If they come to the 50th delegate, they can make a 51% attack. If we now assume the 50th delegate only has an approval of 40%, then an attack indeed only need 40% of all LISK. But 40% is already a big sum, not easy to acquire. And then they have a financial incentive to secure the network.
These "groups" you describe fits very well into the picture for Bitcoin mining and Nxt forging pools I described earlier. If a large enough group of people come together they can attack any system.
If the voting weight was split between selected delegates instead of same weight applied to all selected delegates, there would be more incentive for said whales to accumulate more Lisk to grab more spots and in-process have greater profound interest in its success. lets put it this way, if they get spot #80, they get addition 21 spots for the price of one.
That means someone who owns 1% of all LISK will ALWAYS be in the top 101. Someone who owns 2% can ALWAYS provide 2 delegates. Nobody could do something against that ever.
I will think more about it with Oliver.
Edit:One question to you guys. If we now have your system and a group with 20% of all LISK. These guys can now split the 20% LISK between 20 accounts and vote 20 delegates into the top 101, which will stay there forever.
Where is my thinking error? The current system would be much better, because it could prevent it. Your system couldn't do anything.