user41513: In proof-of-stake, by definition, each stakeholder deposits and locks some tokens (stakes) for more chances to be selected as an author of block in a random-based election procedure.
Till here, it's clear.
But, as the system is not centralized and there is no server which would do the election procedure, each stakeholder installs a client application on their machine to do the random-based selection procedure.
The question is what happens if a stakeholder manipulates the client application, such that he could always be elected as an author of block?
In other words, who (or which entity) does the random election procedure in each round?
P.S. If the question is not still clear enough, please let me know.
 

user5406: Obviously the block author selection cannot be random if all network participants must converge on the same choice. In some systems, the selection is based on previous blockdata which is assumed to have pseudorandom properties and is already agreed upon. Some of these approaches are considered gameable, but it appears that many networks have come to the conclusion that POS is unreliable in absence of a coordinating entity anyway.

The question is what happens if a stakeholder manipulates the client application, such that he could always be elected as a validator?

Under the premise that "the system is not centralized", what you do with your own node software has zero bearing on other nodes. When you manipulate your own node to follow different protocol rules, you most likely just fork off from the network which has no impact on the remaining network whatsoever.

41513: <p>In proof-of-stake, by definition, each stakeholder deposits and locks some tokens (stakes) for more chances to be selected as an author of block in a random-based election procedure.</p>
<p>Till here, it's clear.</p>
<p>But, as the system is not centralized and there is no server which would do the election procedure, each stakeholder installs a client application on their machine to do the random-based selection procedure.</p>
<p>The question is what happens if a stakeholder manipulates the client application, such that he could always be elected as an author of block?</p>
<p>In other words, who (or which entity) does the random election procedure in each round?</p>
<p><strong>P.S.</strong> If the question is not still clear enough, please let me know.</p>
<p> </p>
 5406: <p>Obviously the block author selection cannot be random if all network participants must converge on the same choice. In some systems, the selection is based on previous blockdata which is assumed to have pseudorandom properties and is already agreed upon. Some of these approaches are considered gameable, but it appears that many networks have come to the conclusion that POS is unreliable in absence of a coordinating entity anyway.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The question is what happens if a stakeholder manipulates the client application, such that he could always be elected as a validator?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under the premise that &quot;the system is not centralized&quot;, what you do with your own node software has zero bearing on other nodes. When you manipulate your own node to follow different protocol rules, you most likely just fork off from the network which has no impact on the remaining network whatsoever.</p>
