I did see pfunk's summary after I wrote my original comment. However, you just filled in details I wasn't aware of after reading at least six (maybe more) such summaries. So thank you for that.
I understand completely that at the very least, the STEEM community must now somehow negotiate with an unknown actor in Justin Sun—at worst, depending on whether it's the PR that's telling the true story, a bad actor that intends to subsume the blockchain into TRON itself.
That for me, wasn't the issue as far as the Witnesses are concerned.
The issue is, ten days of deaf ears is apparently enough to tie up accounts on the STEEM blockchain now if they are deemed to be adversarial to STEEM.
Ten days for accounts that existed for basically four years that all involved agree after the fact should have been dealt with previously. That even though the actor in that case, Ned Scott, was known and for the most part, considered untrustworthy. Even so, no such move was actually made, though it was, kind of sort of slipped unto the table last year.
I agree with exyle—for better, for worse, or some point in between, the door for freezing out accounts has been opened. Reversible or not, the precedent has been set.
As it is now, I've quickly reached the understanding that it really doesn't matter what I think at this point. It's done, and my disagreeing with it is moot.
I do have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind.
Do you know if anyone is now watching to see if Sun is powering up any other accounts? Is there any contingency for that scenario? What are the Witnesses prepared to do if he were to do such a thing, or actually responds in some fashion that is either considered insufficient again or acting in bad faith?
It would be nice to know how the Witnesses will respond from here on out. It would be nice that they communicate that to the community, like they wish Sun would communicate such things to them.
I appreciate the thoughtful and substantial reply to my comment and questions. You're the first witness to do so on this post. I'm glad to hear that someone is watching to see the activity on the blockchain, particularly the powering up of large sums.
I'm also appreciative of your take on how the witness voting goes. For what our votes are actually worth, it is one of the very few ways we do have to show our displeasure with some action, stance or even inaction.
I'll need to head over to Curation Corner and see what's there. Didn't even know that one existed until you told me, so thanks for that information, too.
Hey, @arcange.
I did see pfunk's summary after I wrote my original comment. However, you just filled in details I wasn't aware of after reading at least six (maybe more) such summaries. So thank you for that.
I understand completely that at the very least, the STEEM community must now somehow negotiate with an unknown actor in Justin Sun—at worst, depending on whether it's the PR that's telling the true story, a bad actor that intends to subsume the blockchain into TRON itself.
That for me, wasn't the issue as far as the Witnesses are concerned.
The issue is, ten days of deaf ears is apparently enough to tie up accounts on the STEEM blockchain now if they are deemed to be adversarial to STEEM.
Ten days for accounts that existed for basically four years that all involved agree after the fact should have been dealt with previously. That even though the actor in that case, Ned Scott, was known and for the most part, considered untrustworthy. Even so, no such move was actually made, though it was, kind of sort of slipped unto the table last year.
I agree with exyle—for better, for worse, or some point in between, the door for freezing out accounts has been opened. Reversible or not, the precedent has been set.
As it is now, I've quickly reached the understanding that it really doesn't matter what I think at this point. It's done, and my disagreeing with it is moot.
I do have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind.
Do you know if anyone is now watching to see if Sun is powering up any other accounts? Is there any contingency for that scenario? What are the Witnesses prepared to do if he were to do such a thing, or actually responds in some fashion that is either considered insufficient again or acting in bad faith?
It would be nice to know how the Witnesses will respond from here on out. It would be nice that they communicate that to the community, like they wish Sun would communicate such things to them.
Hey, @arcange.
I appreciate the thoughtful and substantial reply to my comment and questions. You're the first witness to do so on this post. I'm glad to hear that someone is watching to see the activity on the blockchain, particularly the powering up of large sums.
I'm also appreciative of your take on how the witness voting goes. For what our votes are actually worth, it is one of the very few ways we do have to show our displeasure with some action, stance or even inaction.
I'll need to head over to Curation Corner and see what's there. Didn't even know that one existed until you told me, so thanks for that information, too.