You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemchiller goes witness! Let's make Steem safe again ;)
they are certainly closer to decentralized and censorship resistant than Steem is currently.
As for a repeat of the Sun fiasco... unless the stakeholder is already sitting there waiting to strike... it would take someone accumulating a large HIVE stake now 30 days to be able to vote in their sock puppets. That was coded into the HF and is a start on changing the governance model. The next steps will come from the community consultations and further dicussions.
how on earth did you reach that conclusion?
hmm let's see .. Steem -- Justin Sun controls the top 20 and a huge ninjamined stake.. definitely centralized
Hive -- 20 people of varying opinions and ideas form the governance and no ninjamined stake -- considerably less centralized
not rocket science to figure out the difference
Interesting narrative!
It is a good thing if Sun is voting for some of our witnesses because if he were not, the original ninja miners would still have complete control of the Steem Block Chain.
This is laughable. Well it gave me a big smile anyway. The top twenty+ witnesses that were here, are the same people who are there now. The reason they hold those position is because they go along with what the original ninja miners want. As soon as one of them starts thinking for themselves they no longer hold that position.
Its not difficult to figure out what is really going on, you just need to look at the facts and go from there regardless of how you would like things to be. At the end of the day it does not matter what we believe or want, what matters is what is.
30 days seems like plenty of time for them to soft-fork (cheat) any investor they disapprove of out of their stake-value.
The funny thing is that I imagined the SUN was going to have his scheduled meeting with the top 50 witnesses and then simply buy-off the 17 he needed. I'm pretty sure that would have worked perfectly.
You are making the assumption first the top 20 would actually be foolhardy enough to agree to a softfork after the controversy of one that had fairly unique basis behind it. Secondly the community would not work to vote their butts out after having learned that focused voting can move witnesses up and down.
That's a lot of moving parts to make assumptions on
He had his scheduled meeting, I listened in on it. He had nothing concrete to offer other than vague promises that he thought the situation was going to be all fixed in a few days and then he went apeshit the next day claiming a github PR from someone not in the top 20 and had long been ignored was going to topple him. That greatly reduced his possiblities of buying off any let alone 17.
I have a feeling that if he'd offered to put these guys on the payroll, he'd have at least a few takers (more than 4, and that's all he'd need).
JSUN wasn't the one trying to CHANGE THE RULES.
He only needed the rules to stay exactly the same.
Maybe you're judging them by your own ethics?
You might be right and some would cave or you might be dead wrong. Either way you're also making an assumption that the community would not get pissed enough at their capitulation to vote them out They might look like it but they are not kings.
Imagine if JSUN had done EXACTLY what the "good guys" did, and ("temporarily") FROZE their "hostile accounts" when he had the chance (when he controlled the top 17).
Don't you think it's a little funny that he DIDN'T DO THAT?
since he had his phony aka sock puppets in the top 20 why would he need to freeze their accounts? What would he gain? Yes, he could have, just begs the question to what end. I realize that SUN is a lunatic with the maturity of a 2 year old but even lunatics can have some intelligence.
Quite a bit actually. It would have made his "sock-puppet" witnesses PERMANENT and unchallengable.
It also would have "punished" those who targeted his stake by only doing to them what they did first.
With their stake FROZEN, they wouldn't be able to vote or sell any of their tens of thousands of dollars worth of steem.
That would seem to be pretty "significant".
That would only be significant if the HF didn't happen. Had he made the move of freezing their stake, I don't believe it would have changed the outcome other than maybe the HF happening sooner. The only possible outcome that might have been changed would possibly be the exclusion list other than the Steemit ninjamine might not have ended up happening.
Everything else would have unfolded as it has.
Oh right, and this, https://steemkr.com/hive/@davemccoy/sorry-to-see-steemchiller-glory7-rakkasan84-wonsama-fenrir78-and-many-others-get-shafted
I do believe you just took the convo full circle back to the exclusion list which is where we started.
I just re-read the post and there are a lot of specifics about how these "excluded accounts" have contributed to the "steem community" over the years.
Some of them have contributed significantly to the community over the years, agreed. Which is why in another comment, in fact more than one comment, I hvae pledged that should Steemchiller decide to post a proposal for him to receive the airdrop I would support it. I'm not a large stakeholder but I'm one of many I've heard and seen state they would support him doing so.
Kid #1 - I broke the rules because that other kid was going to use the rules against me.
Kid #2 - I only used the rules against that other kid because they BROKE THE RULES (even though it's my god-given-right to use the rules as I see fit as long as I don't BREAK THEM).
That's part of "the problem".
They should be focusing on establishing FEWER principled rules (AXIOMS).
Instead of piling on MORE ad hoc, opinion based rules.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. The consultations are more about how to adjust the Witness voting to mitigate a large stake being able to have the power to override the wider community.
Will it be got right ... probably not the first few times. Coming from a wider pool of knowledge there is a much better chance of refinement than just a small number of supposed experts who don't know what they don't know.
Are you listening to yourself?
In a STAKE-BASED-SYSTEM, whoever controls the most STAKE controls the system.
The most obvious way to MITIGATE any potential for harm, is to increase the number of "TOP-WITNESSES" to something like 2000 (but 200 would be a start).
What you seem to be suggesting is to create some special class of "SUPER-WITNESSES" that can never be voted out.
And that's pretty much EXACTLY what they've done already. With that "30 day delay", the current "17 KINGS" can cut-off any potential challengers at the knees.
They are essentially UNCHALLENGABLE.
It's more like you are are not listening .. I know exactly what I'm saying, you are seeing what you choose to.
BTW, you need to keep in mind, I'm responding talking about HIVE where there is no ninjamine and someone would need to buy just about that amount to get the control that SUN has on Steem.
The fact is in the whole episode of Sun and his sock puppets the community learned that collectively when they focused their voting the collective stake had power. While 4 of the top 20 had the help of the proxy.token to get back into the top 20 the others who got up there were voted by the community focusing their votes. That is a lesson not quickly forgotten.
Where you get the idea of me suggesting any kind of super witness is more in your imagination than mine. I never shared any preference of how the witness voting could or could not change.
What I said was the wider community discussing and arriving at consensus is better than a few select so called experts thinking they know best.
But the HIVE did NOT remove the entire "ninjamine". They only removed the part controlled by JSUN.
17 KINGS =/= "wider community consensus"
No, the ninjamine that was the issue was SUN's... it's the one which the real problem in all this, Ned, started the problem with. The code for non-voting should have been triggered when it was built into the code instead of letting Ned string the community along claiming it was community funds.
The other ones who mined at the beginning never made any claims other than they had mined Steem and it was their stake.
BTW.. when you quote someone, it doesn't mean you get to edit what they have said. That ends a conversation through deception.
Please be more specific.
It is common practice to trim quotes with "..." at the beginning or end of a direct quote and or insert words with "[]".
If I have misquoted you somewhere, please explain exactly where.
It is never a practice to insert your own editing into a quote. That terminates a conversation when someone messes with my words.
That seems rather convenient. How is one person's secret stash of "free" steem any better than another?
Non-binding "agreements" or "reassurances" =/= forfeiture of voting rights
I'll bet that if JSUN bought-up a ton of stake from other random accounts, "the community" would be begging NED to vote against JSUN (to "save the community").