Thank you for everything you've done Andrew. I still remember our conversation on the boat tour during steemfest 1. How young and hopeful we were back then :) I wish you the best of luck in your future

I am currently running this soft fork, as a temporary measure. I would also like to note that this is an instance of network availability (of utility) and that this measure does not affect ownership of

I have always felt like a witness position has elements of an elected representative of constituents. In this sense, I don't think a quick or rash opinion or stance on a new unknown is necessarily a good

Thank you! I'm glad it's been hanging in there. I set the end of the proposal for one year to somewhat do that -- give people a chance to renew their support. Right now I don't have plans to change much;

I'm around, and everything is good.. just busy. :) I will definitely be updating my API nodes to support communities. We're still in beta and I haven't transitioned over my hivemind instances yet, but

Sadly, just hashing certainly won't work. In my other comment I think this is a good summary of the real catch-22: I must be able to prove or show to myself that my vote was cast, was valid, and was counted

Yes, I do think ring signatures are the right direction, but the issue isn't necessarily with having a valid and anonymous vote. The issue really comes down to the catch 22 of: I must be able to prove

Sadly, an off-chain ballot means a trusted setup. It defeats the purpose of using a system intended to be "trust free". And we want a system to be immune to trust issues because, well, you said

You can see unique visitors in the other chart! However, note that the data is not perfect. It might not be accurate, and also, it might also be just people that have clicked on a link to a steem website

As my analysis is designed towards candidate (e.g. witness) voting, the same arguments can't be directly ported over to rewards pool voting. Existence of a second layer token wouldn't necessarily detract

In such "attack scenarios", those participants would need to collude to create what is effectively a byzantine fault. In this DPoS case, the participants need not collude or "attack"

I think you and @lukestokes would agree, there's no such thing as 'altruism', as the end goal is changing the system in a way you desire. Good insights. The hope is that we can educate to avoid the price

It's a really hard problem to address in a targeted manner -- you would need some form of judicial system to do so.

They are both actually interesting topics, so happy to have an excuse to talk about them!

Fair, I just also felt the need to defend myself to the reader :)

You are absolutely right, a savvy greedy participant would seek out both. The hope is that the average user gets an easy way to achieve their true goal, and by already achieving this, they do not expend

Yes, these are fair points. I think I'm trying to explain that these centralization considerations for PoS, are a bit different than the considerations for elected positions (and the potential gamification

Your expected value of staking is directly proportional to your staking amount. I mean here revenue. You are referring to expected gross rewards, and yes, in a realistic environment the overheads are flat

FWIW I have never, and will never, use vote bots or buy votes. I'm pleasantly surprised my post got the attention it did.

UBI (given strong identity) is actually not problematic in this way, assuming it's distributed fairly to everyone (and not just those who vote for it). If given to all unique participants in a flat manner,