Softfork 0.22.2: why I didn't apply the changes to my witness node.


View this post on Hive: Softfork 0.22.2: why I didn't apply the changes to my witness node.


Support me, vote for my witness, the highest reward was 2284.33 SP or $498.04 and I myself received 158.16 SP ($34.40) that week.

Producer rewards distribution chart

Concerns

  • Lack of communication from Justin Sun and Steemit Inc in regards to what the acquisition means
  • Tweets and articles spreading misinformation and statement that could be perceive as potential threats
  • Potential take over of the Steem blockchain from the use of Steemit Inc Ninja-Mine Stakes to upvote new set of consensus witnesses
  • Justin Sun recent use of TRON's genesis stake to upvote their own Super Representatives in order to protect their blockchain
  • Token Swap. Moving the Steem tokens to Tron based token would mean the end of the Steem blockchain. Or at least, what is remaining would be worth nothing. This would also mean that we would move to Tron's own governance system. There is also no guarantee that content will be migrated.

Softfork 0.22.2

Reference: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

The Top 20 Witnesses along with some backup Witnesses (including me), Steemians and large stakeholders were in a private chat to discuss the future of the Steem blockchain post acquisition of Steemit Inc by Justin Sun (TRON). The super-majority have agreed to create a Softfork that would:

  • prevent the use of the so called Steemit Inc Ninja Mined Stakes (SiNMS) from several accounts, previously owned by Ned, to be used for voting witnesses
  • power down from those same accounts.

To be noted that:

  • this Softfork is fully reversible and a temporary security measure
  • this Softfork does not affect regular users and their daily use of the chain
  • the target accounts of this Softfork are not any regular user accounts, they are Steemit Inc accounts powered with the SiNMS. It was agreed that those stakes are not to be used for votes (content and witnesses) but for the development of the platform.
  • the secrecy around the decision is understandable due to the potential risks. Also, by voting for your Witnesses, you gave them your trust to take care of the security of the chain on their own, so they have done what they were supposed to do.

Positive notes

  • As mentioned by others already, one positive thing with this event is that Witnesses all gathered to collaborate on a solution to a critical issue.
  • I also discovered that @netuoso has great blockchain development skills.
  • Right more or bad move, this decision does show to everyone, Justin and TRON users included that the Steem community is strong and Justin has bought Steemit not the Steem blockchain. If he wants the best from his purchase, he better work with us. Our blockchain is different to the others he acquired

My stance

I don't want to react based on just concerns but I do understand that others have chosen prevention over cure. But it is against my belief and values to tamper with someone else account and assets.

I do understand and respect the decision made to perform the Softfork 0.22.2. However, I feel goes against my values and prefer to wait until the Steem 2.0 Town Hall meeting with Justin Sun on March 6th 2020

Being a backup Witness, my decision wouldn't affect the effectiveness of the Softfork. However, there are potential risk that backup Witnesses are being pushed upwards towards the Top20 position, effectively rendering the Softfork useless.

Witnesses who haven't applied the Softfork to their node do represent a risk of being pushed to the Top20 so we should expect some changes in the Witness list. There are chances that all the Top 50 witnesses that are going to the Steem 2.0 Town Hall meeting will all be supporters of the Softfork. So it's time to cast your votes for the Witnesses you believe in.

I'm still a believe in the Steem blockchain and its values and will continue contributing various projects including the Steemit Condenser and various communities I'm supporting.

Related articles:


Comments 71


This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.

26.02.2020 06:26
0

Good post man. I respect your stance on this.

26.02.2020 06:41
0

Thanks. I hope we all come up with an ideal solution.

Posted using Partiko iOS

26.02.2020 06:44
0

I'm against the softfork, ideologically. But I do think it's a clever way to go about it. I realize that basically nobody's vote will oppose it. But that doesn't mean we cannot determine the opposition.

Specifically, I want to see if we can approach the 12M SP mark, which is sort-of the high-water mark for the last "fork-them-out" vote, based on the capped measurement use to register votes in the Steem Foundation, if I remember correctly. Remember that they weren't voting on the fork, but instead, the formation of the foundation. It's not apples-to-apples. Just a look at magnitude for comparison.

If we can reflect similar numbers, I'd see that as enough data (and only data) to go on for determining what the "regular users" level of interest is in this course of action.

26.02.2020 06:44
0

Yes it was 12M.

Posted using Partiko iOS

26.02.2020 06:58
0

I currently estimate that the change was an additional 800k SP in favor of @timcliff. Of course, he lost a lot more than he gained, but that's not what I'm interested in for assessing this.

26.02.2020 08:06
0

Shouldn't there be a couple of proposals to assess it?

26.02.2020 08:14
0

Are you REALLY against the softfork ideologically? Question with me for a moment.

I understand where you're coming from, because we're both likely from the early days of Bitcoin.

The philosophical issue I'd like to bring up here is this: Which ethic takes precedence?
Non-alteration of accounts, or adherence to decentralization, anti-censorship, and will of the community?

In this situation, we will have greater freedom as a net total if we lock or banish the SiNMS versus than if we allow this sale. I often favor anarcho-capitalistic ideals, but it can only go so far. At a certain point, we have to be people who are free to fight for our future, instead of machines running immutable code.

Please question your values. My initial view of this situation changed when I remembered my humanity.

26.02.2020 14:31
0

instead of machines running immutable code`

Are you telling us that we should rely on Human Nature instead of codes that have no emotions and won't bury people alive just because of greed and gluttony?

You can't be anarcho-capitalistic then mention the word our which reflects a social contract.

The code is there to level the field for fair competition, not to execute the emotional outcomes of someone who hasn't had their morning coffee.

And just one thing:

Non-alteration of accounts = Adherence to decentralization and anti-censorship.

You can't just split the thing.

26.02.2020 14:48
0

I'm not anarcho-capitalist. I'm just a light sympathizer.

I do not believe in ideologies.

As for code and nature, what makes you think the SiNMS is code, and not a result of greed? The existence of the SiNMS has always been wrong. It should have been wiped the moment it was discovered, or better: It should never have existed.

The witnesses were too passive. But it's not too late. Every Steem that was ninja-mined should be banished to @null.

If you disagree, then vote that way. Or better: Question your ethics.

26.02.2020 15:01
0

Everything that is happening here is a reflection of the Steem Blockchain code.

We need to make a difference between everyone who ninja mined (including many current TOP 20 witnesse - Hypocrisy intensified), an investor who bought a large amount of stack, and anyone who benefited from the status quo then was suddenly enlighted when he realized that his position is threatened.

But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the stakeholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?

Ethics don't have a place here since we all come from different cultures, hence why the filed should be level for fair play.

26.02.2020 15:38
0

Ethics do have a place here, but which ethics we uphold?
Well, that's why we hope our vote counts.

If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.

Do you write code? It's incredibly troublesome to write good code, and even more troublesome to write ethical code. From my perspective, considering we are living in an age beyond the first years of Bitcoin, I think ninja-mining can only be done deliberately: And if it was, we should never have joined Steem.

But this is the home of my entire writing portfolio, it's up to me to defend my home. Is this your home too?

26.02.2020 15:52
0

You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.

I remember discussing before the idea of how people can store images of underage pornography as text (then convert it using simple tooling) on the chain and how the witnesses should deal with it. Some said that they should fork out the accounts, others said this should not be done because it endangers the integrity of the chain.

People can believe in different ideas, hence they will support different things. But people can agree on the rules of the game, same as in football, and anyone who wants to take part in the game should in priory agree on its rules first.

If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.

This is the right path, to make changes that will make it extremely hard for anyone even with a large stake to play God. Many examples were presented that can be implemented to definitely solve the problem, and this should be the case right now. To make the proper changes and push for an HF along with the unfreeze of Tron stake.

Problem is, not everyone likes this idea since right now, many are at the top only because of Pumpkin.

26.02.2020 16:13
0

You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.

I disagree. But we will see what happens.

Neither of us are in a position to write code or buy mass-amounts of steem, so what game do we play?

It'd be nice to play football with rules we've made, but what about the pig from whom the ball is made?

I don't think that ethics are as simple as right or wrong, or 0 or 1.

26.02.2020 16:28
0

"I don't think that ethics are as simple as right or wrong, or 0 or 1."

This remembers me of a comedy when a girl asked her boyfriend after having unprotected sex with him if he had HIV, he responded by yes and no.

I agree, ethics are complicated and can be very diverse. knowing the ultimate source of what is right or wrong is still a question that is fueling the clash of civilization as demonstrated by Samuel Huntington.

Thank you for your time,

26.02.2020 17:33
0

But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the stakeholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?

The statement against it is what I've written: I only stand for myself here.

But let me get into details: If it was smaller, and not able to override all community-voted for witnesses, it would be less of an issue.
If it was truly used only for financing development, it would be less of an issue. There is no evidence that Satoshi has a bitcoin wallet, and if he did have 50, 100, even 1000 BTC, it would be less of a moral issue, considering it was the first coin, and he had no way of knowing if it was going to be worth a lot, or nothing.

You could have bought hundreds of BTC for a dollar back in those days, so if he had a large number of bitcoins, it doesn't exactly matter considering it was the first.

Beyond that, we must ask: Did Ned have the right to sell that Steem?
No. It was meant to be used for a specific purpose. Ned did not consult either the witnesses, nor the users. He simply made a decision which impacts many different people, and in my opinion, the decision he made was so incredibly bad that I will stand against it. Join me.

These are human answers. Not machine answers. They are opinion based, and therefore, superior to a machine answer.

When machines have opinions, I will trust them more.
Until then, I can only trust their developers, owners, and users. And if what the developers or users or owners have done is not right: Then it is up to me to right what is wrong.

And it is up to you as well.

And if we cannot agree, then we must simply go to war.

26.02.2020 16:00
0

A contract that is solely on based "trust" is worthless. People are unpredictable and can change without giving an indicator.

I think the notion of machines doesn't play a role here because the code executes a set of rules written by a human after reaching a certain level of consensus.

Ned did many things wrong and witnesses too. But I can't understand the difference between:

  • Ned selling steem to one person.
  • Or that one person buying the same amount of steem from the market.
  • Or Ned selling Steem on the market then that person buys that steem from the market.
  • Or Ned selling that same amount to different people in the market.

(Witnesse did nothing when STINC was actually heavily selling STEEM)

Freezing those accounts is a political decision that hides a much wors and deeper history of incompetence, greed, lack of professionalism and accountability. Everyone is to blame here.

26.02.2020 16:42
0

I do agree that the witnesses didn't do enough.
And you may be right about that aspect entirely, including the voting mechanism itself.

However, I think you need to see the differences in the different things you listed, considering that the differences do exist, and you took note of them just now.

It cannot be denied that the decisions, and the order of decisions, a human makes are different.

If a human wishes to have dinner, it does make a difference whether or not the animal is cooked first, or still living, when the dining begins, even if the end result is the same.

What I mean is that there are ethical ways to do things. There are ethical ways to sort different types of censorship. There are ethical order of operations that make sense on the context.

Machines in their current form do not see context, and you are ignoring context too when you see no difference between different things.

The numbers all add up to the same: Ned will sell all of his Steem.

But what matters is to whom, and why, and what happens next.

26.02.2020 16:51
0

Just wrote a post on the burn. Agreed, it should have been dealt with years ago.

28.02.2020 13:08
0

Well done. I'm waiting to see what witnesses support this, and I'll remove my vote from them and transfer it to ones that don't.

Cg

26.02.2020 06:48
0

But it is against my belief and values to tamper with someone else account and assets.

With the same logic, would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds? Source

From a purely idealistic PoV, I can understand your stance. But the real world simply isn't idealistic.

There is a big difference between:

  • stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem
  • and every other account.

With your logic, ever since HF9, people could have lost trust in Witnesses controlling the stake, but thinking that would be absurd.

Same goes for the SF 222. It was a highly targeted security measure, to make sure that those funds, promised to be used for Steem, are also going to be used that way. Just because Ned sold his company, those social contracts are NOT simply nullified.

People invested time & money on here, based on those promises given. And, we, the stakeholders that are voting for the SF 222, are now demanding that those promised funds are not just going away, potentially harming the whole ecosystem; but are going to be used for Steem - however that may look like.

Also, most STEEM that was sold, was actually from those early days, which is also a reason why the STEEM price tanked harder than most others. Empty promises & hard sells from the company who created the software.


Anyway, I respect your stance, but I disagree with it.

26.02.2020 07:26
0

would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds?

stolen != purchased

26.02.2020 08:00
0

This isn't about Justin Sun buying the stake. This is about Steemit Inc upholding their social contracts.

26.02.2020 08:05
0

This is about the purchase... because you guys are effectively holding his stake hostage until you enforce your contract.

Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.

26.02.2020 08:09
0

So with your logic:

If you lend me money, with the expectation to be paid back later, but I simply give it away, then I'm good, because you could have demanded to be paid back earlier.

Nice loophole you found there, buddy.

image.png

26.02.2020 08:15
0

Not a loophole.

The new owner is paid for the acquisition. Do we have a problem? That needs to be resolved with Ned. Too bad he's not around to keep hostage anymore.

26.02.2020 08:23
0

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Best of luck in your life with that logic.

26.02.2020 08:31
0

Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.

You can't negotiate, if you've got no leverage. Steemit Inc has (and always had) enough stake to vote in their our witnesses (30 accounts on 1 server even) and give everyone a big F. All of this should have been done earlier obviously, enforce it by code so the centralised stake can't be maliciously abused, but people had trust in Ned - mistakenly.

Due to the SF, we've got leverage now. There are always extremists on both sides, but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive.

However, we will not accept for Steem to be eaten up by anybody, as if we were in agar.io. You might call this FUD, I call it realistic risk assessment.

26.02.2020 08:30
0

but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive

We'll have to see how that goes now.

Personally I have no bias if Steem and Tron each go their way or if they will collaborate closely. I see enough supporters of both scenarios, but what I don't like a bit is the precedent you have set and messing with property, regardless of its history.

26.02.2020 08:40
0

What about seeing the stake as the community's property?

I'm not arguing one way or the other. But the ninja-mined stake is worth anything at all due to the community's efforts. Should it not be considered the community's property then?

26.02.2020 09:27
0

It could have been seen that way and done something about it before it was sold, in my opinion.

Of course, some would argue it's still community's property, and if Sun doesn't like it, he should go to Ned and ask for his money back.

But here's when written contracts are more powerful than "understandings". Do you think he will do that? Should he do that? Do we want him to do that?

Or we just wanted him at the table in a negotiation where he will say anything we want to hear in order to see his stake released?

26.02.2020 09:36
0

Ned and Justin could settle things between themselves. And the community and Justin can come to an agreement which can be coded.

26.02.2020 09:48
0

Well, I truly hope that would be possible and there won't be bad blood on the long term between the parties.

We just parted ways from a leader community didn't stand and probably the feeling was mutual. Wouldn't it be something to jump out of the frying pan into the fire?

26.02.2020 09:57
0

It should have been done earlier indeed. I didn't even realized it could done with a softfork before seing 22.2.

27.02.2020 06:36
0

I am not taking sides only pointing out that Justin can simply run his own version with his stake intact. It's up to everyone here which version of steem has value.. I'm not a fan of our consensus witnesses and think they act very unprofessional and can't hack it anywhere else in the world of business so I'm more than open to supporting what may be a scumbag that can actually create something valuable with the tech..

Our steem team has floundered, whined, and can't see the forest for the trees.. Why even bother having a conversation with wolf he is like the most duplicitous politically motivated ass clown on steem.

27.02.2020 06:54
0

God, I'm really trying to move on from the subject! 😄

My opinion hasn't changed regarding property and the unnecessary use of force, although I see many attempts to make it right-er post factum.

Hopefully it all plays out well.

27.02.2020 08:58
0

Time will tell, in the meantime it's nice to see others at least questioning the council of freedom and their less than admirable track record.. Mr. Wolf muted me long ago as I was quite vocal in my opposition of his rise to power.. It went against our collective botter judgement.. 🤖 Have to wonder what possessed such an almighty force to mute lil ol having an opinion me.. Wanker

27.02.2020 12:31
0

Thanks for your reaction, I appreciate.

I don't think the HF9 case is comparable, it was an actual theft. With the SiNMS, it was an unfair acquisition during genesis, a time where no one really cared about it and then it went on "accepted" during 4 years. By accepted, I mean no one made a SF/HF against it. But maybe there are things I don't fully understand yet due to joining the platform more recently.

I do think that dealing with the SiNMS is a good thing for the platform but I guess it's about timing and I'm looking forward finding a better way to handle it.

26.02.2020 08:30
0

"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"

Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?

26.02.2020 19:15
0

There are many different instances where the social contract of using the stake for Steem was defined.

For example, in the 2017 Roadmap (https://steem.com/2017roadmap.pdf)

Decentralizing Stake
The Steemit, Inc.-controlled primary account, @steemit, which holds approximately 41% of the platform’s Steem Power, will be gradually divested of its holdings in an effort to increase promotion and development of the platform, and this distribution shall further the platform’s security through decentralization of voting power.

Several methods will be employed, including and not limited to: funding the continued research and development of steemit.com, the Steem Blockchain’s first and best application, promoting and publicizing the Steem Blockchain and features, hosting highly available services for platform users, sponsoring conferences and community gatherings, and sponsoring undertakings to build applications and increase user adoption across the entire ecosystem.

This will likely be a multi-year process, but is included in this 2017 Roadmap for the sake of clarity and understanding surrounding our organization’s plans and goals. We have several very large initiatives currently in research serving this goal, and the community should expect further announcements later in the year regarding our firm plans as it yields fruit.

Ultimately, the goal is to harmoniously align the interests of all participants across the entire spectrum of people using and trading in STEEM.

Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:

26.02.2020 19:28
0

As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?

And that justifies sucking all the power away from new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract"?

The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?

26.02.2020 21:55
0

That ship sailed long ago my friends

27.02.2020 06:56
0

Succinct description of the current situation.
Well done.

26.02.2020 09:00
0

Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.

26.02.2020 09:42
0

He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.

...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.

This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.

The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?

That, I assume would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.

26.02.2020 22:25
0

You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.

His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.

How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.

His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.

Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.

A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.

26.02.2020 22:58
0

Hear hear

27.02.2020 07:07
0

I do not even understand 40% of what you talking about and with me many others.
I find it hard to vote for a witness since it's not clear to me who they are and what they stand for (next to mining).

I noticed Tron is not even worth 0.016 cents so I wonder why we need to swap something better into a token hardly worth anything. Is it smart to throw away something people believe in?

💕

Posted using Partiko Android

26.02.2020 10:12
0

Don't look at the price, look at the market cap. Tron is at 1,1 Billion "USD" now. Steem is only 63 million "USD" which is like nothing compared to Tron. (https://coinmarketcap.com/)

I believe things were not 100/100 clear concerning the swap. I agree with the OP on the idea that no one should have the right to nullify your token. Imagine buying 20 million USD worth of Steem for example, then the witnesses decide to freeze your stake (token you bought) because they don't like you. The blockchain is supposed to protect people against such things, that's why we run away from banks.

The funny thing is that we were telling those same witnesses to change the voting mechanism for witnesses for ages (so no one can control the top 20 spots), but they didn't want to because they liked it when Steemit Inc was doing all the development, but now that a big investor has bought a lot of steem, they froze his stake (lazy ass solution) in fear that they might lose their places.

26.02.2020 13:16
0

The difference here is that banks are singular entities and the witnesses are people we vote for.

Another issue is that Justin with the SiNMS has the power to become a singular entity with the power to freeze accounts or alter the blockchain. His plan is to destroy it and reopen it on his Tron blockchain.

If witnesses aren't doing what we want, we can always have campaigns to replace them.

But we cannot easily replace Justin. He bought his way into power.

26.02.2020 14:37
0

We vote for is a bit pretty, let's look at the reality and see who control such decisions.

Witness are voting on each other on top of a handful of what who are making sure that some people will stay at the top forever, without mentioning the SPS were only 2 accounts are choosing who gets what.

TOP 20 spots are like a bank that has 20 shareholders. It's the same thing. Anyone wants to stay in to get more juice and influence, so they usually "circle jerk" each another to stay at the top.

Easy, the witnesses who do not agree on the thing, they can choose to fork their way out. If it's not STINc, it can be another random investor who decided that he want more influence on the chain and want to change things according to his taste, is this wrong? No, because this is a DPOS, where only people who have the biggest stake are the ones who can make changes.

You can't get to the top 20 by posting good content and getting 30 steem each day. People get there by making hidden alliances and buying a large amount of stake.

26.02.2020 15:14
0

Yeah, and I don't think we disagree completely.

My only argument in this situation is that the ninja-mined Steem simply should not exist.

26.02.2020 15:20
0

Thanks for taking the time explaining this to me I appreciate it. I invested in Tron but didn't swap.
How come 20 witnesses have the power to frozen someone's budget?
I can't say I am happy with that. It means indeed a handful control everything and there's no freedom (I already figured that out months ago). If people are willing to invest, no matter big or small, it's up to them what to do with it but Steem is Steem and it cannot just be wiped out as if it's worthless and never existed.

If Tron is worth more how come the crypto currency is not?

26.02.2020 16:12
0

I support and agree with your decision. I wish there were more free market freedom loving users on Steem.

26.02.2020 13:16
0

You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.

The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.

Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.

Why Now?

Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.

We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.

26.02.2020 14:29
0

I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..

27.02.2020 06:59
0

We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.

26.02.2020 14:40
0

Well said!

28.02.2020 03:51
0

I agree with your sentiment, witnesses should not have the power to block/freeze accounts

26.02.2020 18:25
0

.

26.02.2020 19:20
0

You and I think a lot alike. Great write up and analysis.

27.02.2020 00:46
0

I'll respond to everyone in a single comment here.

Note: The SF is affecting only the stakes of @steemit, @steem and @misterdelegation which is ninja-mined stakes. Those stakes were not purchased with fiat.

Note2: My stance of not running SF 222 does not mean I'm for a migration from Steem to TRON or that I will agree to swap Steem tokens for another TRON based Steem token. I also believe that Steem as a separate blockchain is more valuable for TRON than a move to TRON.

Should that be different from stakes purchased with fiat from an external exchange? Except from the fact that they were mined in an unfair manner, they should still be no different, it's like mining Bitcoins at the beginning and buying them now.

Does unfair mining make those stakes illegal? If they are not illegal, is it OK or even legal for Witnesses to freeze them?

@novacadian I'm also up for looking for an alternative solution

@mahdiyari Was it Ned's stake or Steemit Inc's stakes and Ned owning Steemit Inc is also indirectly owning the stakes. If it's Steemit Inc's stakes then by selling Steemit Inc to Justin Sun, isn't it natural that the stakes are now also owned by Justin?

@abitcoinskeptic thanks for your support and sharing your opinion.

@heretickitten

and he had no way of knowing if it was going to be worth a lot, or nothing.

Those ninja-mined stakes, was there a way to know if they were going to be worth a lot or nothing?

Did Ned have the right to sell that Steem? No. It was meant to be used for a specific purpose.

The use for a specific purpose was a promise. Does it constitute a legally binding contract? I do agree that what Ned does was bad, he just sold us off overnight. But maybe he actually did have the legal right to do so.

@dr-frankenstein I guess the difference between your points about Ned selling the Steem is that Ned sold directly to Justin and put the money in his pocket, selling it on a market would probably have pumped the price of Steem.

@wakeupkitty, in a nutshell, when you perform almost anything on Steemit.com or other dApps, your operations (actions) are to be recorded on the blockchain. Before it is done, your operation needs to first be validated against the blockchain rules. This is done by a an app running on a server that was setup by a Witness. Once validated, it is digitally and cryptographically signed and then added to the blockchain. Like when you are signing a contract with another user, there is a 3rd party that should also sign the contract to state that they have witnessed the transaction. The blockchain rules are coded in the software that is running on the Witness servers. By modifying that software you can modify the rules but the new rules will only be taken into consideration when the super-majority of the witnesses are running a version of the software with the same rules. This is what happened with this Softfork. The blockchain software was modified to reject any operations related to votes and power down from the Steemit accounts holding SiNMS.

27.02.2020 05:08
0

I do agree that what Ned does was bad

What is bad is meant to be codified into law, so that doing bad things means doing illegal things, and doing good things means doing legal things.

Law that does not do that is unjust, and unjust law is null and must be disobeyed. Do not dare disagree here! Unjust law is evil law, and evil law is wrong!

Never defend unjust law. Instead, speak out against unjust law and support just law. In this modern era where the word "democracy" can be spoken, speak it: It is up to you, me, and everyone else to determine the law.

If law defends the guilty but punishes the innocent, then the law is wrong.

That's why we would seek to escape fiat with Bitcoin in the first place. Even if what a person does is technically legal, there is no reason to not seek justice against things that are bad, malicious, evil, or wrong. Make things that needlessly harm others, but is technically legal, ILLEGAL.

If we democratically agree that doing bad things should be illegal and doing good things should be legal, then we cannot allow bad things to happen without an attempt at justice.

The law must be changed.

27.02.2020 13:02
0

Some people will never change their minds by reading more explanations. They will try to prove that everyone else is wrong. So yeah, witnesses are criminals here. And Sun is god these days.

Ignoring the community for days, insulting them by a fake AMA, and publishing fake and nonsense news every day.
Of course, the sun is shining.

28.02.2020 11:25
0

Hey, it's kinda random to post here but you don't seem to post frequently so I'm leaving my message here. Please excuse my manner.

So... I was wondering if you are interested in upgrading SteemAuto.com to support trails on Communities. (A "Communities Trail")

Will you please consider extending the functionality of steemauto to make it available to vote new posts on specific communities? I believe this would be a great value adding function.

29.02.2020 05:07
0

Of course! I can't promise an exact time frame but I will look into it.

29.02.2020 12:52
0

Wow, super cool! Thanks!! 👍👍

29.02.2020 13:23
0

However, there are potential risk that backup Witnesses are being pushed upwards towards the Top20 position, effectively rendering the Softfork useless.

Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.

I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?

27.02.2020 14:03
0

What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.

As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast

Posted using Partiko iOS

27.02.2020 21:53
0

27.02.2020 15:51
0

It's interesting to watch the latest developments.

On his blog, BOI has wrote the first part about Steem blockchain and Steemit. In the second part, BOI will talk about Justin buying Steemit.Inc and all it's repercussions.

BOI would appreciate some feedback on the first part.

Thank you and have a wonderful day!

27.02.2020 15:54
0