A question about blockchain governance. My friend debates that Decred suffers from "tyranny by the majority". When the majority decides to approve a design-decision, it marginalizes the minority that doesn't want it.
Wouldn't that put Decred at risk of what blockchain governance was supposed to prevent, a hard fork by the minority?
No one governance system is totally perfect.
Be it state, company or entity governance.
There will always be someone dissatisfied.
And we also shouldn't mix things up.
The governance of a state is very different from the governance of a company or entity.
A system that looks good on one may look terrible on another.
At Decred, who has most skin in the game has the most voting power and not necessarily the majority.
And this is very good in a company or entity, as we know that most people are dumb while those who have the most to lose will think hard about decisions.
In any case, Decred's hybrid mining system, where POS confirms the POW blocks, was designed to make a hardfork like ETH and bitcoin impossible without community consensus.
If POW miners attempt a hardfork without consensus, ticket owners will decline and it will not happen and vice versa.
A hardfork in decred only happens if there is consensus between POW miners and ticket owners (POS).
https://blog.decred.org/2018/10/15/Politeia-in-Production/how many transactions per second has Decred?
I don't know now but with the lightning network will be hundreds of thousands.
