Just some days ago I started a thread about that: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proof-of-stake-to-vote-for-soft-forks-1831638
There is, apart from exchange dominance, another problem: Votes must be recorded on the blockchain in some manner, and if we have millions of votes, then we also contribute to blockchain bloat with it.
An idea could be to use a "second layer" for voting, that would not necessarily have to be processed by regular full nodes, but by miners. It could be a sidechain or, even better, an "extension block" mechanism.
Topic: PoS for voting on blocksize limit? (Read 734 times)
Someone else in another forum posted this and It articulates what I have been trying to say
Quote
In a way, yes, but I'd much prefer exchanges holding power than miners holding power. The reason is that exchanges are much more directly reliant on users and will feel the effects of angry users much more acutely.
With miners, the only way to really kick them is to sell all your coins and even then it only works if you do it at the same time as many others and it fails entirely if enough others see it as an opportunity to buy.
With exchanges ... well, if you don't like how one exchange is using their power? Well, find one that uses their power the way you prefer and move your business there. The market will immediately punish them for stupidity. With miners, you can't really punish a single miner, you either punish all of them or none of them so stupidity has to spread quite wide before it makes sense to kick them.
With miners, the only way to really kick them is to sell all your coins and even then it only works if you do it at the same time as many others and it fails entirely if enough others see it as an opportunity to buy.
With exchanges ... well, if you don't like how one exchange is using their power? Well, find one that uses their power the way you prefer and move your business there. The market will immediately punish them for stupidity. With miners, you can't really punish a single miner, you either punish all of them or none of them so stupidity has to spread quite wide before it makes sense to kick them.
I don't really see a difference between this and mining pools that have chosen to support BU. In both cases there is a large entity using their clients to vote one way or another. At least with a PoS voting system I dont have to spend $200 on an asics on top of the $$ I have invested in BTC to get a vote if I want one.
Is that a problem though?
Not if you feel that they are entitled to vote on behalf of their customers.
Is that a problem though? Their business relies on bitcoin doing well.
Also, what kind of percentage of the total coins are actually in exchanges? I tried doing some research but couldn't readily find any solid numbers.
Also, what kind of percentage of the total coins are actually in exchanges? I tried doing some research but couldn't readily find any solid numbers.
Exchanges get massive votes when they are supposedly just custodians for their customers.
Not quite 4 years ago there was a post on here that described how you could use a Proof-of-Stake voting system to vote on things like the blocksize limit.
You can read that post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230864.0;all
Why did this concept die?? I cant see much of a downside, and at this point, 4 years later, this looks like the most sane way to achieve "Consensus" for things that would force a hard fork.
You can read that post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=230864.0;all
Why did this concept die?? I cant see much of a downside, and at this point, 4 years later, this looks like the most sane way to achieve "Consensus" for things that would force a hard fork.
Jump to: