People will always try to change things. Many thing need changing. Many changes make things better. The goal morality or ethics behind the change is not always what makes a change work or fail. With all change. Someone will try to find a weakness to take advantage of. A method to bypass security and take what belongs to others. And digital theft is much less dangerous than physical. With jurisdiction and local and international laws, retrieval is almost impossible.

So things have their faults.

I understand change and the need for it. Sometimes the necessity.

@3speaktv.

3speaktv
17h
Zero fee layer one, incentivised, elected infrastructure on layer two so it can’t be centralised. (Hive)

Okay, So if I am visioning this correctly. Decentralised is for prevention of corruptive control.
It brings questions. Questions I am not sure I have the right words to ask.

First I will make a comment about layer one. Hive.
The chain run on nodes. Each nodes is considered decentralised, (though a user may run more than one node). Each node attached to the chain is essentially a chain server. They can perform various function and some specialise with one item of the chain. Some servers are better than others. Running a server gives you a status of witness, as your server verifies the actions taking place on the chain.

It is decentralised in that no one person or small group of people would be able to take control over the chain for nefarious deeds.

A demand to hold the top positions. People getting out there in the community and growing their supporters. This is what should push people to the top of the list. If things are still the same, Blocktrades is the top witness and the next 25 - 30 names would mostly be the same about 86% if not more.

The rewards gained is determined by how many blocks a witness verifies.

The costs of running a server will vary across the world. Dependant on the energy supply available and cost. I have no idea myself on what the cost of running a server per year is, not including time.

Let's assume a cost of 10K a year and an additional 10K for time. Totalling 20K cost per year. As I understand not all servers would cost the same and adjustment in benefits would be in place. Just looking at the top 30.

Each of the top witness (only one witness per person) would receive 25K a year for running their server. This is incentive for anyone to put the effort to move up ranks. This cost is covered by elsewhere, Get back to elsewhere in the future.

Hive top servers 25K a year all 25 top witness. drop 5K for the next 5 witness and then to 11K up to 50 witness. If they run top notch servers. Excluding if can do nothing more than make a copy of the chain. Up to 100 witness 5K. Below that is a hobby or not putting the same amount of time in. (Maybe).

For the second layer. I think a new set of witness is a good idea. Restrictions should be put in place, A witness on the main chain should not hold a top spot on the second layer witness list. A witness found to be doing so under the guise of an anonymous account should be removed from the witness ability.

Are the costs for running a second layer witness the same? If so then a similar system to above should be put in place. These costs should be covered from actions on the second layer. Such as the withdrawals from second layer servers have a fee. These fee's should generate enough to benefit those who host a server.

Myself. I think the returns for a witness should be more. Cover both the cost or server energy, some time, and then also create the ability to cover the costs of coding new improvements. Conditions on the coding, Code is shown to be produced and tested. If employment of coder can be verified and the code produced in a timely manner. There is no reason why one witness cannot request funding for more than one coder.

I think all of that should be covered. A strategic time frame is then put in place to divide what a witness now gets from the reward pool and integrate that back in to the reward system. We should work towards the users of the blockchain decide where the daily generated funding goes. manner.

Then there is projects like your own. Although not one I use. My radio face would not allow it. Although I would like you to begin a second one. One with a more specified focus. The content could be taken from 3speak I assume. But more specific and not someone like me talking about how the world could be better to no audience. If there are people who post news items. Maybe upload local events and promote local community. People that post news and not just opinion. That might be something that can gain additional revenue too. Then maybe you add a sports section too. To the new arena. The same you vet those posts you are permitting to be viewed from the platform.

Your project 3speaktv would run independent, like it does now. I have no clue of the costs, they might be too much for the chain to support right now. I do know in time. Those costs can have perpetual reductions. For projects the members might like to support. This would also change the proposal system as elsewhere would be providing funding for the essential running of the blockchain.

The benefits to all of this comes from the demand for the token created. This would more so be stabilisation on HBD when it falls below 0.98 and upward pressure on HIVE when HBD is 0.99c.

Governance lol back to here. I have a question on the blockchain multi signature.

Is it possible to create a multi layered multi signature system to control governance of an account. This would be.

5 accounts on each layer.
Apply x 5 accounts 4 must sign.
Verify x 5 accounts 4 must sign.
Verify valuation x 5 4 Must sign.
Sign to release x 5 4 must sign.
Release value x 5 4 must sign?