RE: Witness Update - Running my own softfork (22.3)
Thanks for your update and outlining your thoughts. Having the limited set of operations blocked as your softfork is running right now has been heavily discussed in the days leading up to #softfork222 however a supermajority agreed that it would set a dangerous potential trigger:
Running your softfork will just signal to the Steemit Inc Stake key-owner (Tron Foundation) that voting on witnesses is not desired. But per social contract zero-voting, also not content voting is left out. Is that intentional?
Additionally the supermajority of witnesses running 22.2 agreed to block more operations: By only blocking "vote"-operations like yours is doing would leave a serious leak open: The possibility to start a major powerdown of the stake into a new account. This could for example require a hardfork. And a hardfork means all exchanges need to be aboard for the switch, likely having drastic implications for all Steem users.
Although the #softfork222 blocked operations for the Steemit Inc Stake related accounts seem harsh, they are the only way to guarantee no abuse (read: actions against the social contracts connected to the stake) can be done with them in the time we wait for talks with Tron Foundation.
The discussion with Tron Foundation is at 6 March upcoming.
That seems to be left out of 0.22.2, since @misterdelegation stake is still being used to vote on the chain. Or am I missing something?
I understand that, but in effect, the stake is still being used to vote. Maybe nothing could be done about that, I'm not sure, but in reality, Steemit Inc. stake is being used to vote on posts every single day.
So if the account delegates to a third party, it's not Steemit inc. stake anymore?
I'm just trying to nail down exactly what this is about so I can make informed decisions about the situation. If this is about enforcing a contract that comes along with the Steemit stake, then those delegations should apply, as it was also promised that stake would not vote. If it's about a security threat, then I could see the position that the delegations aren't a problem.
To summarize:
In soft fork 0.22.2
Steemit accounts (misterdelegation, steem, steemit, steemit2, and steemitadmin) can not vote directly from these accounts. But they can delegate steem power to other accounts (same as they were doing before in order to support different projects). So yes, in the end, this power is used indirectly to vote posts. (But take into account that if you restrict this then Steemit Inc will not be able to create new accounts with delegation), which is very important to welcome new people.
However, they can not vote for witnesses or proposals, and can not delegate this vote (can not set a proxy).
Finally, all operations like transfer, power up, power down, are not allowed.
In soft fork 0.22.3 (timcliff)
The restriction is only in voting for witnesses.
Vote for proposals are allowed, and all operations for vote posts, transfer, power down, etc. are also allowed.
Steemit Inc shouldn't be allowed to vote. The reason why those delegations weren't revoked is the very reason why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It advantages some witnesses at the expense of the rest. The longer those delegation and vote will be ongoing the harded it will be to stop them.
All delegations are still in play, but no voting from any Steemit involved accounts.
I understand the arguments behind why the more restrictive hardfork is more secure. We have a way to deal with the potential outcomes though without violating the property rights of a stakeholder. I fully acknowledge that it would be a painful and less than ideal scenario, but I am not going to use those difficult decisions we would have to make as a justification for something I don’t feel morally right doing.
[Edit] In terms of only restricting witness voting, that is all they have voluntarily agreed to at this point.
What are your thoughts on the property rights of the community being violated by all this? Seems like this is something you haven't given thought to, or you just didn't mention.
Edit: About voluntarily agreeing to something and being forcefully held to it: that doesn't seem like it protects the choice of the party to change their stance on what they initially voluntarily agreed to. If there is choice, it must include the choice to change one's initial position. Otherwise the party is being held hostage to their initial choice. So this sounds contrary to the principles you mentioned. Have you given thought to this?
I am for preserving everyone's choice, but only if it includes everyone, and not just some. In all your reasoning, you seem to be including only some.
I don’t view the stake that Tron owns as the community’s property.
I am not going to let them change their mind at a whim and go back on their word without any warning or notice. If they want to have a conversation about going back on their word and doing the opposite of what they promised, we can have that conversation (the soft fork can be removed at a moments notice) - although if they are trying to head in that direction I’m probably making plans to fork at that point.
Oh I had missed that loophole. I appreciate you highlithing it here.
"By only blocking "vote"-operations like yours is doing would leave a serious leak open: The possibility to start a major powerdown of the stake into a new account. This could for example require a hardfork. And a hardfork means all exchanges need to be aboard for the switch, likely having drastic implications for all Steem users."