Quote from: jibble on March 28, 2016, 09:07:44 PM

Quote from: sussex on March 28, 2016, 08:44:25 PM

Yes, I do understand all of this, but it's not really relevant to my main concern, which is about the way delegates claim their position. However, if the delegate pool was to be made substantially larger, wouldn't any centralisation claims be easier to fend off?

Here's an interesting little thing about predicting voters turnouts... at least, I find it interesting:

There is an (admittedly disputed) formulae for this:

   PB + D > C,

   P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election,
   B is the perceived benefit that would be received if that person's favored political party or candidate were elected,
   D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting, and
   C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting.

For an average Lisk voter, we can already see that both P and B are essentially zero and I can't imagine D would be very high. C would likely be quite/very high due to the effort of reading about delegates and especially paying to vote.

Now look at it from a (selfish) large Lisk holders/group point of view:

P would be high, because a high Lisk holder or group can put a lot of Lisk into voting and quite possibly affect the outcome. B would be astronomical because he's hoping to get a delegate out of it. We'll leave D as before because we can afford to, and C would be possibly quite high due to cost, but not as high as B, because B is where the profit is.

Ah ok i see clearer now , I would have to agree to be honest , it was one of the things i was thinking about when i was reading and investing and looking at the economical incentives, a doubling of delegates would lower voting power and increase decentralization , althou i am not too certain on the negatives that could be made with such a jump in delegates, i mean financially , people are still earning a very tidy sum for running a delegate . But not sure of attack vectors or possible manipulations of the system were it to be expanded like such, there could be non lol, but could become worse off . Like possibly voting being worth even less to the smaller people would they be less inclined to actually vote. The percentage of power distribution against the loss of actual delegate voting would need to be figured out without reliable figures.

I would be interested in this being talked about more , especially if the coin grows in value very quickly , would a increase of delegates not help the system better? surely , spreading the wealth instead of accumulation from the 101. is there any plan to perhaps experiment on test net or debate about it with developers.

100% agreed. The 101 model is not scalable and does not take into account the market value of Lisk as a potential threat. Now we are talking about pools of master nodes and people still think this will be a decentralized system. Your concerns are valid and very well thought, though I don't see any Lisk dev following them up.