RE: Tron and Steemit Join Forces
SteemIt Inc has controlled a very large portion of the STEEM tokens since its inception. At one point over 50%. Now, SteemIt, Inc retains ownership of about 20% of the entire STEEM token economy.
SteemIt, Inc made various promises and verbal (typed) contracts to the community. SteemIt, Inc even created a hardfork that added the ability for a user to decline the ability to vote for posts or witnesses, or set a witness proxy.
My question is, what is going to happen with these arrangements. What is going to happen with the SteemIt, Inc stake and the millions of tokens that are hiding on various exchanges? Binance has showed that they will use their (purchased?) stake to vote for SRs on Tron.
Will SteemIt/Tron be participating in voting for witnesses via the consensus protocol of Steem? Will SteemIt/Tron be using the company stake to vote for posts? Will SteemIt/Tron use the millions of liquid STEEM tokens to participate in the internal market or the various exchange markets?
I raise these questions in particular due to the fact that @justinsunsteemit has used premined company stake on Tron recently to participate in the consensus protocol by voting for SRs. @justinsunsteemit also uses language like this when discussing his plans for Tron: https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1230224864725700608
As you can tell, @justinsunsteemit idea for how to manage Tron does not really fit with the community and ideals of Steem. Will SteemIt, Inc finally utilize the decline_voting_rights operation?
Thanks for your information and I eagerly await your response!
I think doing this would be vital not only for the sake of the Steem community, stakeholders and witnesses, but also for Tron to successfully gain the community and dApp ecosystem that they clearly have hoped for (judging by the communications). Many want to believe that this can indeed be a win-win as stated in the article, and removing any doubt that another important promise by Steemit Inc on its use of stake will also be delivered on would do wonders to cement this belief.
This is the sort of signal I would want to see to halt my power downs, and possibly buy more. Right now the pragmatic thing for me is to get as liquid as possible, as quickly as possible, and wait for clarity.
The wider the scope the better, but I was just thinking of it in terms of witness voting as the context of the quote would indicate.
It prevents both.
Good! Prevents another attack vector albeit one that would likely be more conspicuous. Btw respect your stance.
I'm concerning that it will take is one Judas witness and others will be tempted. If that is something that we could expect, hope we nip the problem in the bud somehow.
It does indeed. It will remove proxies and witness votes.
Fall in line or you will be punished.
May be a bit much but...
That's the best I've seen yet kudos sir
Exactly this. He needs to be aware that he won't be met with optimism and a warm welcome if he suddenly appears and announces plans that go against the core values of Steem. His lack of understanding of Steem's foundations and lack of interest to communicate with the community should be considered hostility.
Amen
would be really nice to know
Ninjamine. Not even once.
Yeah I know that hindsights 20/20. Wish everybody the best. Prepare your keisters and don't forget!
for those who do not know what the Ninja Mine is , our Blockchain has a shady past
https://steemit.com/steemit/@aggroed/a-brief-history-of-the-ninja-mine
Nice good job informing people. This illegitimate stake is precisely what needs to be properly controlled and prevented from being used to destroy Steem.
We can thank @ned's ineptitude for the ninja mined tokens to no longer being 40+%. Decentralization takes time. 😎
I kept hearing about this. Thank you for posting. I just joined the community and really love the concepts, I wish I got in on it earlier after being a member for such a short time and then seeing all this Justin Sun commotion. #scaredtobuybagsnow
Well put and I am wondering as well on all these points. Justin is not the most trustworthy.
decline_voting_rights doesnt really change anything as they can delegate or move to exchanges and back (you know how mrdelegate and other odd accounts came to life). so in the end its at - do they fullfill promises or not.
It isnt meant to destroy their tokens or value. If thats what you think is "doing something" then that's fair; but I disagree.
They own their tokens. We just want them to show a good faith "contract" to not purposefully use the stake to undermine the consensus layer or the rewards system.
They could always transfer tokens, power down to a new account, etc. But it would be an obvious violation of promises and an indicator of hostility towards the Steem blockchain and its community.
What do you think of 1sp 1witness vote?
I am not against it. Someone smarter than me would have to think about the possible pitfalls, but I personally think it makes sense.
At the very least, a user should not be able to vote for more witnesses than is required for majority consensus. Aka, less than 15 votes preferably. 1 vote is definitely less than 15 :)
Time to distribute the power held by the creators, they've sold us down the river.
Just when I was having hope again, too.
FML.
Is your hope slightly renewed? :)
Much better now, but that is what I was saying just before stinc became stunc, too.
At least we are acting as a collective, now.
For better, or worse.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@justinsunsteemit/open-letter-to-steem-community
I promise to do my utmost to represent the Steem community and my witness supporters to the best of my ability. Seems our soft fork has prompted the response we were hoping for so far.
It weakens the security of the chain generally (lower stake threshold to vote in malicious witnesses) but that may be a reasonable tradeoff to reduce the control of the largest stakeholder(s).
If the largest continues to persist in its vision of kneecapping us so we don't change the world, we can just pack it in.
We've gone from stinc to stunc, in that case.
JS bought his stake, let's hope he is onboard with the rest of us, and not here to string us further along.
Won't this change slow any one account from voting in 17 witnesses?
Thereby increasing the stake needed to rule the chain?
How complicated is the coding change?
If trivial, any hope of getting it in the next fork?
It doesn't literally do that. Given the numbers, if you assume (probably incorrectly) that a Tron/Steemit bloc would have no other support, then it probably couldn't vote in 17 witnesses, and certainly would have a harder time doing so. But with even some additional support (which IMO is likely given marketing/campaigning/etc.), they could probably still do it. Pretty damn hard to come up with voting rules that block stake that is 50% larger than entire rest of the voting population. This isn't just trying to block a tiny majority (say 51%), it is trying to block a very significant supermajority.
In doing so you inevitably weaken the chain against smaller-stake attackers. Still, the compromise may be worth it.
I doubt it is that complicated, and it could be possibly be done.
Hmm,...I agree that stake will find friends willing to sell out.
We are playing crapitalism, after all, and easy money is the sweetest.
Am I wrong thinking that voting full sp on 30 witnesses is alot more than voting full sp divided by up to 30 witnesses?
Rather than voting 1m sp 30x, each vote is reduced by concurrent votes on more than one, 1m sp on one, 500k on two, 333k on three, etc.
I fail to see how this would empower small accounts in any attacks.
Currently in order to vote in any witnesses small stake has to overcome the full weight of all stake voting for the 20+ witnesses acceptable to the majority stake, so something like >50%.
If votes have to be split up then in a minority attack situation, the majority splits its votes across 20+ "good guys" and the minority need only achieve 1/20 (5%) of the majority voting power to vote in one malicious "bad guy" witness (not necessarily all that bad, but strictly speaking undesirable) and 7/21 (33%) to vote in enough to break BFT.
It might be good to resplit the governance and block production roles as was the case in Bitshares, each with slightly different rules. The governance roles might favor broader consensus while the block production roles favor tighter chain security. But I haven't thought this through sufficiently; it could open up other attacks or undesirable outcomes.
There are probably other undesirable effects to different voting systems apart from security too. If voting for another witness splits your votes then up-and-coming witnesses will have a much harder time getting votes at all Most voters will choose to either support one of the top 20 or maybe 21 or 22 trying to push them in. "Wasting votes" on #56 won't happen.
Good questions and I encourage them towards transparency so that Steem users can be aware of what is happening. I'm going to try to remain open minded between the pros and cons concerning many things. I'm not totally sure what to think at the moment. That's why I'm here.
Presently witness votes multiply the advantage of large stake holders 30x. @edicted seriously proposes changing witness votes to 1Steem=1vote, which is how DPoS should work to effect governance.
While this change would impact @justinsunsteemit's ability to exercise arbitrary governance of Steem, it would not eliminate his ability to exercise the stake he controls to effect governance of Steem rationally. I strongly support this proposed change to how governance of Steem is effected.
Thanks!