You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

in #exyle3 months ago

Sorry, I didn't catch it, but was it just you personally that was against it or did Block Brothers vote against it as well? Is there a list somewhere to see how each of the top witnesses voted?

Sort:  

We (@blockbrothers) voted against it by not running the soft fork.

@exyle I am in favor of the soft fork.

I disagree that it happened behind closed door.

Please do not spread FUD. I have a lot more stake than you and I am not afraid that my account will ever be frozen.

The soft-fork is a safety measure against centralization and completely reversible. If this does not work for you, its fine. It is alright to have disagreement.

If Justin Sun bought the stake in open market, then this wouldn't have happened.

Yes, I can say that it will not happen to anyone else, especially you :)

How can you say it didn't happen behind closed doors? Justin, the owner of the stake, was not involved. He's the first person to involve in this discussion.

I do not think so. Justin Sun do not own Steem Blockchain. We do.

If you do not understand this, please consider educating yourself

You can see it in two ways.

Because only a select few people were involved and no-one knew about it the argument can be made that it was behind closed doors.

But on the other hand, the witnesses that discussed it are selected by the community to do what they believe is the best for the blockchain and what they did could have only taken place like this.

With my post, I am just stating my opinion. It differs from yours, which can happen. We have also agreed on things in the past. In this case, I don't believe in freezing anyone's account without any real justification.

Maybe my feelings stem from Dutch politics where there is always a middle ground and people talk with each other no matter what. I am not used to/fan of striking first, talk later.

But on the other hand, the witnesses that discussed it are selected by the community to do what they believe is the best for the blockchain and what they did could have only taken place like this.

This is the correct statement. Therefore, we are in agreement. Discussions happened thoughout the week in many public forums. Interested people, including myself, participated actively. Then top witnesses met and decided based on majority. This is the way governance in a blockchain should work and did work.

Personal disagreements are perfectly fine. You can be fan of something, I can be a fan of something else. Governance should not depend on what an individual is a fan or not a fan.

I feel this is a step in the right direction and our chosen representatives have balls, unlike many of the "oldtimers", including Ned himself.

i'm also not a fan of "x first, talk later". But weren't you shocked then also when Tron announced "token swap" in announcement, twitter, (paid for?) publications on Coindesk, FAQ blog on Poloniex about support for "upcoming token swap". That seems like a "Publish first, talk later"-move initiated and coordinated by Tron.

"x first, talk later".

That is probably the most misleading thing exyle said.
We didnt talk to him???
Literally the first thing he comes out with is that he will dismantle the chain.

"Because only a select few people were involved and no-one knew about it the argument can be made that it was behind closed doors."

The witnesses knew about it. Many witnesses, including yourself. That's not "no-one." Actually...these are the most important people and arguably the only people who needed to know about it, as the topic/risk had to do with blockchain security and continuity. And that's one of our only obligations as witnesses.

"I am not used to/fan of striking first, talk later."

There is no option of talking first when the other party to the conversation is the one that represents the potential security risk to the blockchain and can act nearly instantaneously. While you try to talk and make your requests or suggestions, they can click a few buttons and make your views/opinions/requests completely irrelevant.

To completely ignore this fact is reckless and to continue repeating "talking first" as a viable option to deal with an existential security threat is absolutely mind-blowing. In no other world would this be a good option and it is certainly not one here.

Justin Sun owns his stake of the Steem blockchain like you own your stake of the blockchain. I'm not saying he owns the whole blockchain.

But if witnesses could freeze a stake without talking to the owner, this would mean they own everybody's stake and the blockchain as a whole, and that there is no ownership for someone outside the witnesses.

I personally guarantee that your 36,603.806 STEEM won't be taken away :)

If we didn't do anything that could have been worth zero, at least now there is a possibility that it may be worth something.

I'm not scared about my stake, why would anyone fork me out? But what would investors think about buying a currency that can be frozen?

You're talking about possibilities of going to 0 but I don't think that ownership should be taken away just because of your (or anyone's) fear.

And you can't guarantee anything about my stake, it's not like you're my banker. Your arguments are wrong on so many levels.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from.

But what would investors think about buying a currency that can be frozen?

Actually many potential investors have decided to not invest in STEEM exactly because there was this threat from day 1.

Bottom line is. He acquired a company and the tokens that cam along with that company shouldn't be in circulation in the first place.

They chain stopped and started again 2 if not 3 times until they mine all this stake which felt as a governance stake.

Justin is way more clever that Ned and that dormant stake...wouldn't stay dormant for much longer.

Okay, thanks for the info. I think I have my vote proxied to Block Brothers. Are they going to stop voting for the other witnesses who were for it? It seems like that should be the next step if you don't agree, you change your vote right? For DPOS to keep working the way it is supposed to anyway...

thik timcliff did not run the softfork either

Thanks for the info.

No, even though it might sound strange we don't make rash decisions like that. We carefully evaluate who we vote for and make this known publicly every month or two.

Even though we don't agree with this particular decision we do look at the bigger picture and take everything a witness does into consideration.

Also, we are bound by the trust proxy voters have given us so we don't just upvote and unvote witnesses on a whim.

By publicly stating that we don't agree with this fork. We are giving our voters a choice. If anything, at least we are very clear how we feel about these recent actions.

Well said and explained. Thanks for clarifying that!

Meaning he vote swaps

you can see on for example https://steemd.com/witnesses (most right column) which witness runs which software. If it says 22.2 it is the Softfork222 update. So for example you can vote on witnesses who run another version.