Author

Topic: SC's supernode system variant (Read 1203 times)

sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 252
October 13, 2011, 09:08:13 AM
#6
Quote
That would only apply if there's only 1 supernode. If the protocol allows a maximum of 100 supernodes then 49% of the coins could elect up to 49 supernodes.

Doesn't that still mean that the others can perform a 51% supernode attack and probabilisticly rewrite the block chain at will?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 12, 2011, 06:45:58 PM
#5
51% votes to take the other 49% coins and theres fuck all you can do about it ?

Democracy is and always will be two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Unless you can come up with a system for voting thats as elegant as bitcoin is for currency you wont get anywhere.


t3a
full member
Activity: 179
Merit: 100
October 12, 2011, 06:38:40 PM
#4
So now a 51% attack would involve getting 51% of the coins.

Actually if there are multiple contenders, 5% may be all that's needed to win the vote.
donator
Activity: 1654
Merit: 1354
Creator of Litecoin. Cryptocurrency enthusiast.
October 12, 2011, 04:48:29 PM
#3
I like the concept of voting, but it seems like it wil bloat the blockchain.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 12, 2011, 04:21:20 PM
#2
Voting is probably preferable to a dictatorship. However youre not accounting for the future when supernodes will be distributed and competing ?
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 251
October 12, 2011, 04:17:13 PM
#1
By now it's clear that the majority of people reject the idea that wealth is proportional to the trustworthiness of a node, so how about this: instead of directly giving supernode status to wealthiest people we vote for supernodes (which may not necessarily be wealthy) with our money, in the ratio of 1 coin = 1 vote. This way poorer people can band together and surpass the voting power of the rich ones to elect a supernode of their choosing. It also allows the rich to relinquish their supernode power and give it to a more trusted member of the network. Voting would be done with a special transaction which basically says that any money held by the sending address is a vote for node X.  

Would this work better?

For reference, here is the original system: http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php
Jump to: