RE: I was fighting Goblins and then my blockchain got soft-forked
Thanks for replying @fredrikaa, I appreciate it.
Witnesses did reach out for clarifications on the most pressing questions regarding the planned use for the Steemit Inc stake and if it would be considered to be used for witness voting within minutes of the announcement of the acquisition.
Did you/them get any response on these attempts? No response or an 'avoiding' response imply different things.
I can't speak for everyone who now runs patch 22.2, but for me and my team, we need to better understand the new direction for Steemit Inc and how it plans to utilize its stake, as well as some measures for the community to trust that it will be used as stated.
What kind of measures should I think about? What would make you and your team feel confident we can let Justin Sun 'handle his stake' again? :-)
Myself, I will be spending a lot of time the next few days working to help create a mutually beneficial outcome. I think we have a lot of possibilities now that the need for marketing talent and resources are potentially there, and the community is more active than ever.
Agreed. I see so many possibilities. I was actually starting to get excited about 'our new friend Justin' and what it could mean for us, and then this happened - not saying this will turn back the possibilities, but it is a risk. A risk I understand is big enough to take actions on, but a risk nonetheless, and one with some big ethical question marks I have not yet found an definitive answer on :-)
Wishing you and your team the wisdom that's needed to make the most out of what is happening now and in the past few weeks. Cheers.
Our first experience was being told we could provide a list of questions for the AMA with Ned and Sun. After having carefully come together around aset of questions and handed them over, they were ignored in the AMA.
We continued to stress the urgency to know how if the new owner planned to use the stake similar to the conditions that have been made and taken for granted by the community and investors for years, namely that it shall not vote and be used to grow Steem, and were told that it would be a "high priority" to get that answered. It was asked more or less daily for the past 10 days.
To me, there should be no possible way for the stake to be used for witness voting. Actions may include disabling the voting rights on the account (which can be done as an irreversible action by the account owner). It could also wait until a new hardfork where we limit the number of votes to 10 which would mean that nobody would be able to single-handedly vote in a sufficient number of witnesses to have a supermajority. I would also need a clear and public statement on what the intended use of the funds would be. At least it is something the community should know since so many have invested money in this chain on the assumption that this particular stake would be used to market and grow it. Whether or not I would fully agree with it is less important.
This was by no means an easy decision. But I believe it was the only responsible thing to do in the end. It feels wrong to deny network access to a certain user (which is what the witnesses are doing. No account details are changed. Nor is the blockchain changed. Access to it is denied), but I believe it would be irresponsible to allow an account to have the complete power to practically destroy everyone's value here. I don't want to assume bad intentions on Tron's side the way I've seen many do since the acquisition. Regardless of who the buyer was, such a vulnerability should not exist. Thus my main regret is not to see this action made, but that it should have been done 3-4 years ago in one way or another.