Softfork 22.8888 - Yet another DPOS Failure - Reaction
If you have been living under a rock you may not know Steem had a 3rd Softfork which didn't include a community discussion and was clearly known about by those who control the SteemIt, Inc stake, which represents around 21%. SteemIt Inc stake voted for the witnesses signalling the fork and unvoted those who didn't.
These very witnesses had vowed not to tamper with anyone's stake. (Isn't it beyond ridiculous that even had to be said) Here is a list of those currently running this version of code.
If you take the back story out and look at the situation without bias, it is the same code, prohibiting the same actions, deployed on and by different actors, freezing specific accounts' ability to transact, vote, or transfer funds.
I was told by our expert witnesses, some of the best in Graphene, that it was appropriate for the top witnesses to drop any code and other witnesses to choose whether or not to adopt it.
If Justin was a threat to Steem, prior to Hive - would also be fair to say that Steem witnesses were a threat to Steem/Justin's version after Hive? It's either "just code" and can be manipulated through the unemotional, non-judgemental "code is law" view. Or it is a story of who is right and wrong, which objectively always has two sides and is based on perspective.
It is clear the current deployment of DPOS has security issues, recent history shows getting a handful of people to agree to drop code turns out to be much easier than Dan had originally imagined.
Based on results, to invest in a DPOS system with the current deployment one should determine if the major stakeholders are "good or bad" and if they only need to control 20% to have a majority and be a threat seems like it would take constant diligence in a shifting market space to know if one's investment is safe.
For those who are going to tell me how bad Justin Sun is having to determine what the motives/values of other stakeholders was never part of my crypto vision.
Feeling frustrated
It has been interesting seeing you being explorative. I have a video due to illness i am usually disoriented but as the video went on, i started to get my bearing. It is a lengthy video to watch but in it, you can hear my views, me as a legitimate illiterate:
According to me, there was never an issue. This all wasnt a Justin Sun thing. It has always existed. It is a world thing. The strength of steem's POS or let's say its saving grace so far has been its 'prove of brain' element but this layer of it is potent when learned from or when mined to enhance code, than just use it as a reward-distributor. That was never its beauty. And the beauty of steem isnt in its use as a governance model or upholder of morality but this isnt only a case with steem, it affects the entire blockchain world till date and there is a lot to learn from steem but we dont tend to use steem say much for learning or say to gain insight into the true state of the world by virtue of its public nature and its proof of brain. blockchain makes bother much about using blockchain as a predictor; predict human behavior in a bid to curb it and starting from that premise....well, man can't rule man. Many of these things in reality are very simple but to see these things clearly, one may need to shed some of the known knowledge and look at it as a layman or woman. There is no issues here really, where one applies real life paradigms. Looking at someone's wallet to weigh their voice, if we want to replay that blockchain tech, blockchain will fade like techs before it. it is that simple. Where we use blockchain all over again to replay the dynamics popular by world standards, same tech, innovation etc in a bid to distribute rewards, blockchain will fade. where we use it to do what the conventional world does, set curriculums, innovations etc in place in a bid to remove value from human and distribute this value among innanimate things like money, career, luxry and well now blockchain as well, to where blockchain becomes 'the solution bringer', 'code is law' etc instead of it 'as a tool to return value to humans; once again we will trample one another for the tool, and blockchain will fade before it even blossoms. Where it is tension, rifts, competition again once again on blockchain, beauty of blockchain, decentralization etc will never be revealed to where it becomes indispensible by world standards. this is all beyond steem or hive. blockchain at large, all going through, seeking the next best governance model, seeking the perfect code, the flawless blockchain when in reality it will host humans and arent we with flaws. Looking at governance model even, that of steem or hive, a vote action is just boolean, static, cant capture enough in terms of context, intention etc information tangible for actual governance. it is even more static when it is entirely stake-based. for instance, 'the vote' of the governance layer compared with 'the vote' on the proof of brain layer, you will notice that 'the vote' on proof of brain does better in terms of dynamism. the vote itself is costly cos it depletes, it is right there on the Ui in our face, there is also a repuation factor, a proof of brain dynamics etc but you will notice that the governance layer and the recent treasury later as quite static. i would expect the treasury code to have learned something after all these years and perhaps be explorative in their approcach but we get too keen on predicting humans behavior, wanting to uphold morals as if morals is just black or white (there is grey in the real world) in a bid to curb or govern once again with the treasure fund. so it is very possible now that the fund has millions and doesnt accomplish much, cos it replicates the governance layer almost and is static, stake-based etc proof of brain has shown that people can play even where they dont have stake just on the sole fact that they are humans, they can 'proof brain' at least etc so that the impact of stake isn't everything. wanting to guard rewards alone and predicting that everyone is here for rewards, then you can't build code that moves or that can take cognizance of these other worlds. blockchain especially, one can be here for tons of reasons, even unheard of reasons than what is popular and well, oh people voted for an account and it is instantly predicted that they support ideals, when 'oh cant i just want to play with the vote button'; or do i even know of the governance model at all etc now exclusion list, prediciton make based on vote and vote is weak when it comes to governance cos it has no context. it cant capture it. perhaps even a poll along with a witness vote, with provide better facts around which to base governance on but are we looking? Truth is, many of these things arent issues. Why should one person say something and an entire community shakes. If i said the same things, would it shake say i have 100 sp? but can i have 10000 bitcoin and become whale tomorrow. these are very simple dynamics of real life that is easy to see. now if we are so shaky, that is predictability. one can just sit somewhere for months, look at steem or hive, create a stimuli and take over the chain, cos oh, we are so reactive. these things shouldnt shock, it exists in real life, there are worlds where these things are regular. now, in my case, did i look at a premined stake? no. it is stake based afterall. and if a Justin wants to use his stake, my job is not to govern that. it is staked based governance. i may decide not to play, play at a later date, by stake, rally people who have stake or not play at all. there are tons of other uses for steem or hive besides governance, tons and tons of use. i build all my project models from all the learning i got from here and it is just beautiful. yes it is public ledger but alas it also has a privacy or anonymity. can i grow so entitled to want each person to explain their actions, oh they can want to be private and where they do so, it has mostly be voluntary and can i be conclusive about intention? yes there is a public laedger but do i have details about the behind the scenes? I have said too much. I will pause. For once i am talking and i want to now, even though i had 4 of recent post downvoted some till zero. It is all beautiful. There has been so much learning and it is just beautiful. I am on both and i also started a witness on steem. it can be said oh, i want to participate in governance but oh 'how about i just want to run a copy of the blockchain and just play with it' or oh i just doing it for a witness to be up there saying 'everyone has something to offer'. This isnt something i would have done in the past but now i am going for it, for the sake of further learning etc
The entire witness model seems to be premised on the assumption that their only point of general agreement would be to keep the chain running, and that otherwise they'd be fractious and disagreeable towards each other. But the reality seems to be that it's very easy to get blocs of witnesses that are so chummy with each other that they are happy to conspire behind closed doors.
It seems like we have a lack of checks and balances, and few structures that work against large stakeholders having a very high influence. It would be nice if people would start some brainstorming about whether there might be structural solutions to the problems that have been made clear by the latest crises. Even if they don't get implemented it could be a useful intellectual exercise. Part of the problem is that it may be impossible to design a system that's resistant to monkeywrenching by large stakeholders. Enforcement mechanisms in social systems can only work to deal with rare outliers, they can't bear the load on their own, voluntary compliance with norms is essential. But a lot of stakeholders seem to have little interest in being "civic minded". It's not clear to me that you can build a functioning system if you don't have that.
Very nice comment. I shared my thoughts here as a legit illiterate. It is bit disorderly though: https://steemit.com/reaction/@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv#@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv
Yeah, frustrating in a lot of different ways. Just when it seemed like the drama might be on the verge of dying down and we might be able to start looking towards the future and forward motion again... BAM. Seems like JS is his own worst enemy, this time. I can't imagine what he's thinking.
And the situational ethics of so many people on both sides of the renewed debate is just astounding. I could go find posts from people on either side of the debate after SF 0.22.2 and use them to support the other side today. Sad.
But I don't know whether I'd go so far as saying that it's a dpos failure. The argument could be made that stakeholder apathy doesn't make it centralized - as long as everyone has the opportunity to vote their stake. But this continuing series of moves and counter-moves definitely shows that dpos with these particular parameters is less than optimal.
The problem with DPoS == "People". ; -)
I've said before that although I love Dan Larimer's approach to consensus methods, I've always thought his view on humankind is a little too optimistic.
There's always this assumption that the more stake you have, the more skin in the game, the more your actions will be good for the platform.
It doesn't always work that way.
Hahaha, just that. A hybrid works better, where 'human' still maintains some value. look at the voting system on 'proof of brain' layer of steem or hive which has been its saving grace, there is something to learn there, that the governance layer isnt learning.
My thoughts now openly: https://steemit.com/reaction/@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv#@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv
I couldn't agree more... It's a people problem. :)
I share my thoughts here, more openly now than used to be the case: https://steemit.com/reaction/@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv#@surpassinggoogle/q8d8bv
I hate to say I told you so...
Cryptocurrency networks are institutions. Being decentralized has never made them immune from the human element. It has always mattered WHO are the largest stakeholders in DPOS. It has always mattered WHO are running the mining pools and the large miner farms in Bitcoin. It's better that the illusion drops for people now than that they continue to believe that crypto is "run by math" and similar untrue notions.
Steem is an experiment in decentralized governance, at least we're learning quite a bit from it.
That's a really good point and it is good to view things realistically
i really just don't know what to think about these witnesses.
However, Mr. Tron's #1 statement to the Koreans was that stake was inviolable. I guess that was just lip service.
Yep, I am not defending him in the least.
No one should ever touch anyone's stake ever. Tampering with stake is not a joke, not something to be taken lightly...
Not a method of asking someone to go to the table.
What is the point of all this? Still butthurt about HIVE and not getting an airdrop? Let the people that want to leave, leave and you'll have more coins for your community and you're rid of the people you don't like, so why freeze accounts apart from hitting the hornets test and causing a PR problem.
I agree, I don't get the point either. Vengeful I have to assume. Yet, also if you left, abandoned the witnesses, why would you even be mad.
I guess greed I don't know, people can always make a case for why their view is right lol.
I think part of the problem is that some of the people that claim to want to leave aren't actually leaving, they're hanging around and causing chaos. (I don't support the soft fork, but I see that this is not an entirely one-sided dispute).
I get that, but its not as if there aren't so many people milking the place. Its by no means one-sided for sure but trying to control anyone else is a slippery slope, as soon as you make the step you can keep moving the goal posts, that's not really why I got into crypto. Bad behaviour that see benefits are not the fault of the individual but a fault of the protocol, they're just exposing the actual cracks in the system, but thats just one mans opinion
I agree. I think the virtuous way to go would have been for these new witnesses to propose ideas that would reform the system to reduce or eliminate the exploits, not just avail themselves of different exploits to try to strongarm their opponents. Part of the reason the Hive spamming and trolling makes me so angry is that it actively interferes with any possibility of having fruitful discussions here about ways that things could be reformed. It's hard for anyone to switch out of "war" mode when others are screaming in their faces.
Why do people have to choose one or the other? I say if they have stake here, they can use it. They are a part of the community and as such are free to use their stake and their voice as they see fit. It would be best for the Steem community to consider what they have to say and make a determination on it. We don't benefit by stopping them from transacting.
Tbh it’s all starting to reach the point where it becomes difficult to even care.
it's an 'ethical problem' thing, not a code is law thing.
Starting with code first, and....well....we can see...
What I was hoping was that there would be enough people with a big enough stake to stay relatively neutral, and new people would step up, and create api access/nodes,/frontends etc etc, and spread the power structure around..
looks like a long road ahead to get something that's even the appearance of neutral..
The effect of ego in action, it is not good the spirit of war and vengeance.