Investors might see that differently.
Jordan already controls the development funds, which I consider necessary in this stage.
Protocol upgrades can’t be forced by a central entity without risking the whole network.
This is in no stage a good idea.
Then who decided the “90%”? Why not 51%? Even 40%?
Generally, 90% is the highest threshold for a supermajority decision ( http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supermajority.asp ). Shareholders could, however, vote in a motion to tell devs to reduce it to whatever number they want. However, you have to consider the mint difficulty and the possibility of a double spend attack if you lower the forking threshold.
1 Like
I believe 66% is a good threshold. Even 51% can separate Scotland from UK, 
66% threshold would make it 33% easier to attack the PoS of the network during the fork. A 90% threshold keeps it at only 10% security reduction during a fork.
If you don’t have a high degree of consensus for protocol upgrades the network can totally break down.
Imagine the network protocol updates at 51%. Depending on which shareholders update you could lose half or more of the total minting power. Now you have two separate networks without the same minting power prior to the hard fork. Guess what? The difficulty does not take that into account. It could become far more difficult to mint blocks (if any get minted at all). There will be huge numbers of orphans broadcast to each node as they figure out who to ban which can have its own ill effects. This is a really broad explanation but there are a lot of technical reasons why you need a high degree of consensus when performing a protocol upgrade. You are forking the network and there are many factors to consider related to the security of the network as a whole.
Even the core developers of the “Bitcoin Classic” proposed hard fork suggested a 90% “hash rate voting” for the fork to become valid. You can see references to is here by searching “90%” on the page.
3 Likes
consensus vs democracy
batman vs superman
We’re at 42.8% today. I’m beginning to personally contact people I know who own BlockShares to request that they upgrade immediately. I encourage all other BlockShareholders to do the same.
1 Like
@tomjoad, have you seen this?
Doesn’t the person that managed all BlockShare sales still have a contact list, both email and Bitmessage? It should be used if they do.
I have no connection to BlockShare sales and do not have a contact list.
Yes, that’s right.
@JordanLee, can you ask @BCExchange to use the Bitmessage/email contact list and send out an announcement about v4.0.1?
It should be communicated that all BlockShareholders should be signed up under the B&C Twitter account and that they should closely monitor the Bitcointalk thread and the Nu forum for news updates until we get a fully functioning discourse forum up and running.
With the current low minting rate, that is not unthinkable.
We should develope bcmessage to inform big BKS holders.
Jordan or whoever did the initial sell must have a pretty good idea of it.
Dhume has obviously probably (way) more than 7500BKS, for instance.
For collateral @Dhume is required to put up 100>% of the hedged amount in USD. For this @Dhume
proposes to put up 7500 BKS (valued at the open market between 6-7+ USD
a piece at the time of this proposal) which current value is estimated
to be 45.000-52.500 USD as collateral.
I suppose FLOT has updated its BKS wallet?
The FLOT BKS collateral of NuSafe isn’t used for minting.
2 Likes
1 Like
43.7% - slowly increasing
getprotocolvotes
{
“2.0” : {
“blocks” : 1126,
“block_percentage” : 56.3,
“switch_to_date_time” : “”
},
“4.0” : {
“blocks” : 874,
“block_percentage” : 43.7,
“switch_to_date_time” : “”
}
}
1 Like
42.1% - I’m dumbstruck by the minting BKS holders…
getprotocolvotes
{
“2.0” : {
“blocks” : 1158,
“block_percentage” : 57.9,
“switch_to_date_time” : “”
},
“4.0” : {
“blocks” : 842,
“block_percentage” : 42.1,
“switch_to_date_time” : “”
}
}
1 Like