jmmadn

@kristapsk The lowering of the default exponent, as widely discussed in #1247, also increased the likelihood of Sybil counterparties. This tradeoff was accepted because the number of fidelity bonds in...

> Well it doesn't increase a Sybil risk for anyone who chooses to change it to whatever they think is best. I think we've talked about defaults in the past...

> IMHO we shouldn't keep meddling with this value. Agreed, it shouldn't have been changed in the first place, so let's revert it. > Since clearly there's no provable best,...

> Yeah but other people clearly had the opposite opinion. How can we prove one of the party wrong? Because it's not about proving anyone wrong. One approach protects new...

> Clearly we can't all be right at the same time. > This can be proved either right or wrong. I don't subscribe to this - it seems very binary...

> If it's not black and white, as in one solution is not clearly better than the other, why change it? Already mentioned - the change was made because of...

> EDIT: It wouldn't be the case because as said in this discussion multiple times other people have different ideas about how bad the sybil gets (i..e, how cheap it...