@bendineliot @aral

Thank you for posting this, I often think it must be me, like how narcissism was removed as a valid diagnosis, removing it does not make it so.

@rantipole They don't. I added it because if Sybil, a0, is designed to prevent a person or persons form controlling the system, then only pools with a lot of pledge will get saturated.

@rantipole I would say millions, pledging 10% or more.

The calculator has Pledge to Delegation Ratio to get you thinking along those lines.

@rantipole Yes. Pledging 100% removes Sybil, at least that is how it looks to me.

I just updated the calculator to better reflect what is going on, Sybil Pool View highlights this.

@rantipole Sybil lowers a pools potential, so in this, it is like a tax. Without Sybil, all pools would have the same desirability no matter how many pledges a pool received.

Did you see the post on Sybil?


Adaizen boosted

We believe in a decentralized Internet . Which is why we carry our conversations out on (Twitter is just a feed)

This way to the

Pledge to Delegation Ratio:

(Pledge / (Saturation - Pledge)) = Pledge to Delegation Ratio

This is of course, where it should have been all along.

Testing our @Nitrokey HSM 2 that will allow pool owners to not (that's right not) trust us in operating their stake pool.

They hold the keys, securely on an open source hardware security module, and thus are the only ones who control their pool.

Compliance requirements:

Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)