You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

in #exylelast year

Hey, @exyle.

Up until last night when I came home and saw my blog feed blowing up with the statements of witnesses, I was considering the idea of a forked out stake as a position of last resort. Very last resort, after it was evident that everything else had failed and that the STEEM blockchain was in jeopardy of existing and thus the stakes of everyone along with it.

And even then, it would still set a precedent and have repercussions because not everyone would want to recognize to what length or extremes were taken to preserve the STEEM blockchain prior to the freezing out.

But then last night I come home and find out it's not the absolute last option, but seemingly the first, couched in a softfork that while potentially reversible, basically states, "your stake is no longer your stake if we say so."

I've read the posts of several witnesses who were for it. I either missed it in each one, or there was no attempt on their parts whatsoever to reach out to Sun for some kind of clarification on his intentions. Did they? Was one attempt made? Two? It seemed like they were expecting him to come to them is what I get from it all.

I also wonder if they know whether or not Sun has any other STEEM sitting out on exchanges somewhere that can be brought in. He's highly suspected of doing that with TRON. If such is the case, and it's big enough, all of this is for naught. And as you say, at this point, how do you trust one another—how does Sun not move to secure his investment and position, and how do the witnesses ever allow the stake to go back?

All over a "social contract" about what the 'ninja-mined" stake would be used for with a previous owner that no one seems to like? For all of what he could have done better and not done, as far as I know, Ned never used the known Steemit accounts to do anything with other than pay his employees.

I don't know. It seems like there are people here who feel like they own more than they actually do. Which includes the stake of a company that created the blockchain in the first place. Social contract or not, this softfork, and the way it was done, was not the answer. And especially not the first answer.

Sort:  

I either missed it in each one, or there was no attempt on their parts whatsoever to reach out to Sun for some kind of clarification on his intentions. Did they?

Please read @pfunk excellent chronological summary.

We (the witnesses, stakeholders and community members) had prepared a lot of very good and precise questions that were sent to @elipowell before the AMA. The AMA was not an AMA at all and we had to unite and spam the trollbox with our questions to get their attention and only 3 questions being answered.

We had to wait nearly one week to get an official reaction from @steemitblog.

Since then, we have not received any clear feedback on the questions we continue to ask. Instead, official PR coming from Justin Sun or the exchanges he controls have been provided to us, with content in total disagreement with what has been announced!

Hey, @arcange.

I did see pfunk's summary after I wrote my original comment. However, you just filled in details I wasn't aware of after reading at least six (maybe more) such summaries. So thank you for that.

I understand completely that at the very least, the STEEM community must now somehow negotiate with an unknown actor in Justin Sun—at worst, depending on whether it's the PR that's telling the true story, a bad actor that intends to subsume the blockchain into TRON itself.

That for me, wasn't the issue as far as the Witnesses are concerned.

The issue is, ten days of deaf ears is apparently enough to tie up accounts on the STEEM blockchain now if they are deemed to be adversarial to STEEM.

Ten days for accounts that existed for basically four years that all involved agree after the fact should have been dealt with previously. That even though the actor in that case, Ned Scott, was known and for the most part, considered untrustworthy. Even so, no such move was actually made, though it was, kind of sort of slipped unto the table last year.

I agree with exyle—for better, for worse, or some point in between, the door for freezing out accounts has been opened. Reversible or not, the precedent has been set.

As it is now, I've quickly reached the understanding that it really doesn't matter what I think at this point. It's done, and my disagreeing with it is moot.

I do have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind.

Do you know if anyone is now watching to see if Sun is powering up any other accounts? Is there any contingency for that scenario? What are the Witnesses prepared to do if he were to do such a thing, or actually responds in some fashion that is either considered insufficient again or acting in bad faith?

It would be nice to know how the Witnesses will respond from here on out. It would be nice that they communicate that to the community, like they wish Sun would communicate such things to them.

It was not an easy decision and I fully respect everyone's point of view because I shared the same concerns. But we had to make a decision and bear the consequences.
I'm OK with all the witness vote removal I got, including yours. This is truly what DPOS is and that's a good thing that people remove their witness vote if they disagree with what their representatives are doing.

Do you know if anyone is now watching to see if Sun is powering up any other accounts?

Yes, the blockchain is under close surveillance;)
This is how we noticed significant STEEM movements on some accounts before the acquisition of Steemit by Justin Sun, without knowing what was going on behind the scenes.

Is there any contingency for that scenario?

Yes, because the Justin/Tron Foundation has a load of money. No, if it's not worth it.

What are the Witnesses prepared to do if he were to do such a thing

Nothing. The softfork is not against Justin Sun or any wealthy enough investor. It is only about pre-launch ninja-mined stakes of Steemit accounts.

... or actually responds in some fashion that is either considered insufficient again or acting in bad faith?

I do not agree to leave the softfork applied forever. Shall he behave like Snaky Ned, I may revert my nodes to prior-SF version (i.e. unapprove softfork) and decide whether I leave the platform or not.

Regarding witness communication with the community, we already did some at the Curation Corner forum hosted by @shadowspub yesterday. I hope she will publish the recording soon.

Hey, @arcange.

I appreciate the thoughtful and substantial reply to my comment and questions. You're the first witness to do so on this post. I'm glad to hear that someone is watching to see the activity on the blockchain, particularly the powering up of large sums.

I'm also appreciative of your take on how the witness voting goes. For what our votes are actually worth, it is one of the very few ways we do have to show our displeasure with some action, stance or even inaction.

I'll need to head over to Curation Corner and see what's there. Didn't even know that one existed until you told me, so thanks for that information, too.

Exactly.

I think you said it well. I have not much to add. I also don't feel entitled to the STEEM of the company that created the blockchain. I never have.

On a side note: I do believe efforts were made to contact Justin before taking this action as other witnesses have replied here and in other posts.