[dreit1]

Im all in on dBFT, so I believe in the elected delegates maintaining said distributed database. Similarly to how governments maintain roads, I trust the elected parties to not corrupt the database.

I think complete trustlessness is a false dichotomy. Im ok with trusting certain parties in maintaining distributed "value databases" as one might call them}

Edit: false dichotomy is bad phrase, idk "chasing the wrong goal?"

[annabellish]

The problem is that a blockchain which does not allow third party miners gains nothing from being a blockchain, because it can be a traditional database without losing anything at all. A blockchain which does allow third party miners is open to attack without obscene resource investment.

[dreit1]

In dBFT the attack vector is a collusion attack between elected delegates. In practice I do not see this being any more likely than a 51% hashpower attack.

However most delegated systems are still young. The only reason people believe that 51% attacks are impossible is because it has worked for 10 years. If delegated systems work for the same amount of time, I don't see why they wont get the same reputation.

I think Dan Larimer gives a good argument on the situation.

https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/response-to-vitalik-buterin-on-...

Edit: His Conclusion is something many people should consider, when outright rejecting delegated consensus.

"EOS is designed around far more realistic assumptions and logic and achieves scalability by avoiding the dogmatic fallacies promoted by Bitcoin and Ethereum maximalists."

[sharemywin]

as far as I understand it miners only bootstrap the system eventually transaction fees run it.

[bmarotta]

The "elected delegates" or "trusted parties" you are describing are the Certification Authorities in a certificate chain. We have this already and we don't need blockchain for that.