You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: New steem.io launch!
The consensus mechanism is used to secure the blockchain, why do you need it for the reward pool ? I don't get it..
The consensus mechanism is used to secure the blockchain, why do you need it for the reward pool ? I don't get it..
I think what Ned is trying to do is put focus on the rewards voting and labeling that "PoB", which is the part that new users need to wrap their head around before they move on to the other "consensus" that we have about the actual blocks. Hope this makes sense and that I'm not way off here.
Labeling reward pool distribution as 'PoB' is wrong, because the allocation mecanism does not use proof of anything, it's just a smart contract and so there is no need for consensus, the blockchain is already secured by DPoS. Proof of work has a clear definition, it's not some vague concept that you can apply to anything by just adding quotation marks..
It's true, or so I think, that there's not cryptographic "proof" so to speak in this case, but rather there is "brain work" that gives an entry into the economic system without doing the classical buy in of currency/hardware to "mine" it.
You're right this does introduce some confusion. I can see use for the term on a microscale, but out of context (which it's going to be for most people, both non-steem techies and non-techies) this could be very burdensome.
A better term should probably be introduced at some point.
Wouldn't Proof of Contribution be a good term. It discribe what's happening under the hood with greater accuracy.
Instead of how many hashes you can do, steemit creates a system where it's about getting the most upvotes by providing value to the community. It's value on top of value.
The upvote system isn't perfect. But it represents the contribution of an individual to the community. My term may not be perfect. But it's pretty damn good IMO and it can be backed with reasons.
I think using proof of anything is misleading but if they are going to use this word anyway, proof of contribution sounds much better. Actually I'd use 'contribution proof' so as to not confuse this with a consensus mechanism.
“Proof” does not absolutely imply “Consensus” of anything. Proof is a mathematical and evidential term not a term narrowly created for blockchain consensus algorithm descriptions.
This is a bit in contradiction with what you said earlier, whatever..
Are you saying that 'proof of brain' does not allude to proof of work/proof of stake/etc.. ?
Contribution, or percieved contribution, because who knows how many real users vs bots might be a better term.
Of course in the end, technically, it all circles back to a real brain somewhere doing the work and being rewarded for that work. Hence proof -of-"brain (work)" isn't an alltogether horrible term, but it can get very confusing.