Hello Ada team… I am revisiting cardano, since i read they are decentralising the DPOS. So I understand that the total amount of stake in the pool will increase the likely hood of that pool being chosen to be a block creator, and in the future threads of pools will run concurrently to create parallel processing and different chains.
Are the rewards then divided by all the people who delegated to that pool proportionately to their invested stake?
Wouldn’t then everyone just opt to be in the biggest pool? and then we have one centralised pool? I think I missing something fundamental here. Please help if u can
mmm, it still all sounds quite centralising to me!..if the larger the pool…the more likely u will win…and then then more you invest (i.e. the more dollars u have access to to print)…the more u are rewarded…or am i missing something…?.
1/i read/heard that the higher the stake/the larger the pool, the more likely it is likely to win the slot? so wouldn’t one always invest in the larger pool?
I think it’s always gonna be about the fees.
It doesn’t matter how large the pool is if you stake 100 ADA then you always have the percentage chance of being chosen as slotleader.
I’ve heard in two videos that the % chance of (wining/being able to contribute) is directly proportional to your stake, so i can’t see how this is moving away from centralisation --------
i thought the whole idea, is that we are trying to create a ‘system’ to prove our trustworthiness without it being able to be gamed by having lots of resources/////which bankers can get by printing money===========not so “fair"
It’s all about the community. Sure if 60% of all stakeholders would delegate to one pool the system would be unbalanced. It’s very important that there are many pools with an even distribuion. But why would you delegate to a pool with a dominance of 60%? Your personal payout is always similarly high.
there is no motivation for stakeholders to delegate to a large pool. it’s just important that the servers are always online. The operators of the pools just get a little fee the reward goes to the stakeholder
IOHK has announced they are aware and effectively preparing mechanisms to prevent single too large and powerful stakibg pools. One of this is that the rewards are not linear but capped from a certain pool size.
In order to achieve a solid decentralized network of stable and reliable pools delegation makes sense, but also that no one of these can start growing like a cancer.
IOHK and Cardano’s approach as usual is not a “first-to-market-then-try-to-fix” but a series of well thought experiments, formulas and scientific research:
Here’s a quick view on some of their ideas
If you’re interested in some more information on this I recommend listening the presentation video I linked at
thanks very much i will read!..……i don’t doubt charles’ good intentions and he clearly seems to be one of the most informed about //////blockchain/hardware/internet/cryptography/and the creation of a truly scalable and secure global network………whether it will be decentralised I’m still to be convinced…:)…….though when i hear comments like "For example the ability to do voting by stake weight””’’’and equal voting creates apathy”””……its alarms me a bit…
I know what you mean and - believe me (or read the other thread) - my thoughts are also so oriented.
The problem is due to two fundamental properties close to everyone want’s to see in blockchains: decentralization and anonymity.
The first one excludes a centralized organisation like a bank or a national government, who give’s you a unique head-based identity (mainly to have you under perfect control from birth to death with a constant flow of taxes)
And there is a reason why close to all absolutely want to remain anonymous when dealing with blockchains: unlike traditional bank accounts, EVERYONE can see every transaction and value at every time on every (public) blockchain.
Now, this makes it practically impossible to have a one-vote-per-head system. You could try to define whatever minimum stake you want: either it is that high, that many poor people can’t participate, or it is that low, whales can split their stakes into thousands of “virtual heads”.
The good thing is that as long as this concerns only the election of block minters it doesn’t really matter as long as there is not one single or an organized group of very rich stakeholders who can reach more than 50% of all stakes (not very probable, because also very rich people compete with and control each other).
A possible crux is, that a good and well-thought blockchain effectively should also offer a solution for a democratic and decentralized future evolution. Cardano has planned to do so with his treasury system: part of transaction fees go to a treasury. Now developers can propose projects that could become implemented. Stake-holders can vote with their staking-weight and top-X projects get their funds to deliver (kind of a little ICO)
At this moment rich whales could combine their voting power and push implementation of things like digital tax havens. (so no need for Bermudas, Luxembourg or the Caymans anymore)
