Don't fool yourself:

IQ and the Wealth of Nations
Reviewed by K Richardson
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html#aff1

This is because IQ tests are not constructed on the basis of any scientific model of intelligence: they are simply created (by statistical manipulation of item content) to identify individuals who have already been deemed to be 'intelligent' by other, more subjective, criteria.

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.

No need to be mad if someone is asking the same question again and again. New users check this thread everyday and How can they know the
answer is in few pages? Let someone else reply if you dont want to.

I just created my account to post this. Not posting 10 times a day does not mean you are not part of the altcoin ecosystem, anyway I am not here to justify the validity of my opinion (basing yours on the number of posts is at least less valid though). Still, I though Lisk had a great potential but now with this shitty idea, I give it less less than 2 years to disappear.

Honestly guys, this delegate idea is the worst thing I have ever seen on this forum. If you think that giving plenty of money will motivate people to secure the network, you are already screwed. How could you seriously think that this is not a centralized system? God, I really thought that the Lisk concept was good at the beginning (I took part of the ICO) but now I see myself dump this already dead coin during the first bump.