Witnessess, you f**** up... It is probably time to take responsability for your own mistakes.
Disclaimer - This is not about if it was right or wrong to freeze Steemit stake. It's an even bigger problem
So, i wasn't going write again about Tron subject anymore, but a post from @lukestokes caught my attention.
https://steempeak.com/steem/@lukestokes/fact-steemit-sybil-attacked-the-steem-blockchain
On this post, @lukestokes talks about Sybil attacks, and is an interesting read, specially if you don't know what a Sybil attack is.
But this got me thinking:
Witnessess were given control of the chain for so long but never discussed to improve the governance system to protect the chain from this situation?
Well, from what i read, they did.
But here is the catch:
As @valued-costumer and @onthewayout comment on the same post, there were some discussions that happened in the past, but what were the witnessess position?
"Nah... It's fine. No need to change anything"
To me this is a really big red flag on this situation.
While what Justin Sun did was a shitty move, and put Steem blockchain on a dangerous state, it all go back to what the witnessess didn't do.
Witnessess failed at their job of securing the blockchain
That is a fact.
And yet, i still haven't seen any witness coming foward and admit that they fucked up.
So, maybe this is a perfect time for that.
I stand with and support what the community is doing, voting and not making possible to Justin Sun implement his own Hard Fork but,
Unless the witnessess take a stance and admit that they failed at their job, even if things get back to what is was, there is nothing stopping it from happening again.
That's all i have for today.
I don’t think admitting will solve anything for the community.
Thinking about a solution will. Implementing or testing a solution even more.
Voting for the witnesses that provided the workable solution too.
Right now we have something like between temporary and special situation where trust for the previous top20 witnesses is greater than what justin fake accounts are doing. But after the somewhat awkward situation is solved, we have room again for discussion I would say.
Myself, I learned a lot with this... and I am now of the position that accounts should only be able to vote for a maximum 4 witnesses.
Why?
It will avoid the attack Justin did, it will still allow for the top20 domination to be cancelled (you only need 4 nodes different to cancel HFs). Will be way less difficult for everyone to vote...
For now this would change lots. And as any other experiments, we shouldn’t do many changes before verifying it works as we wish.
But I have a couple of other ideas that sometimes I share with witnesses.
Thinking about a solution will. Implementing or testing a solution even more.
Agree. But the first step on that is witnessess recognizing their mistakes. There is a lot of talk about trust these day, so would you trust them if they don't take their part of the blame?
The focus should indeed to solve the crisis, but be watchful of how each witnessess is behaving at the time.
Those that acknowledge that at the end of the day, it was their fault that all this happened because they didn't paid proper attention to the chain safety, well... i can't trust them anymore.
Trusting on people that admit stuff can be as much deceiving as the other way around.
Admitting or not, can help or not the community, depending on what actions come after that. As any other STEEMian, being watchful is advisable (as much as you can), I have seen much admitting sometimes.. but then nothing get's done, and that's not useful too.
Being a witness is not just about trust unfortunately. They almost need to be "gods" these days, in order to keep their positions, talking care of any sorts of "obstacles" that flow within the community, sometimes even fraudulent with vengeance principles. I know no one is perfect or that they are not all "angels"... but from the perspective of going forward, what I least expect is for them to keep "admitting" whatever they do wrong.
Would much prefer that instead of admitting the previous code did not handle some kind of governance impeccably with 0% flaws (which is kind of going to the extreme here, but let's consider it), that they instead proposed new code changes already tested on the testnet and how would those changes improve the current problems found on governance. And then get this ASAP into the plans... so that people can start looking that "things are being planned, and eventually done".
I don't want to go that deep on that conversation now because currently things are not normal. The governance is somehow "challenged" by not cooperating parties and until that gets properly dealt with, the things I mentioned above can't flow as fast.
But once they do, then it would be something giving me motivation to buy even more STEEM. And don't get me wrong, I still understand that many changes are in reality experiments. That's why things need to be tested and we should also have more agility into the pipeline of development of STEEM, which by itself it's another whole conversation/topic. Most people that develops on STEEM never get a return for their time spent at least... if you have to compare with real life jobs I mean. It's usually a very long term investment, in average if not way above it, I am guessing.
You nailed it.
As someone who has researched apologies for governance mistakes (ex. Japan should apologize to East Asia some more), apologies are lovely but the term is requires clarification to have any meaning or purpose.
It seems to be a matter of ego. Do you want them to bow at your feet and beg for forgiveness?
What actions will be forgiven if they apologize?
Will their apologies ever be enough to please you?
Can you clearly define the type of apology expected?
Do you promise not to demand more apologies if they meet your expectations?
That said I don't think they need to apologize.
hi @abitcoinskeptic
Why Japans should appologize to East Asia? Just curious.
I don't think @phgnomo want's that :) However knowing that witnesses are capable of admiting to mistake (assuming they did one) would be very refreshing and probably ... unexpected ;)
Just to clarify my stand: I have no opinion about this issue and I'm only trying to figure out what other people think.
Cheers, Piotr
Events leading up to and during WW2 in the Pacific. Many people in East Asia feel Japan is not apologetic.
I'm just curious why anyone would want an apology from the witnesses. It's like asking the police for an apology because they woke us up when trying to stop a thief.
Apologetic? All the big powers think that is nonsense in today's world where everything is measured in the "economy" you have.
A recent example, watching Mr. Sun flexing his muscles purely on the weight of his "wealth" to disrupt a decentralized chain, in the name of which, he is making millions.
So till the big countries (like the US) apologize to the natives, nobody else doing it (like Australia) matters.
So, the only people whose apology will matter right now, would be the Tron foundation/Justin/steemit Inc, I think.
This is a really insightful reply, thank you.
It makes sense that the focus shouldn't be on an apology because an apology is something you do when no amicable resolution is possible. Apologies are usually for feeding or repairing egos.
I don't really think anyone's apology would matter right now. An offer needs to be on the table from each side and discussed, first. Or perhaps, all sides can start and end every discussion with a handshake and an apology...but I guess you see where I'm going with this being pointless.
Thanks for prompt reply @abitcoinskeptic
I kind of disagree with you on this one.
Witnesses are not police officers. There are kind of ... like politicians, who dominated entire goverment and are all representing one party. And those politicians started conflict (soft fork) after which they promoted narrative "us versus him" - narrative that will probably not serve steem blockchain at all.
So it's hard to expect that all users will be happy about it. After all it's a game of powerful and wealthy people. And small users will pay the price and will be often manipulated.
ps. I've noticed that your topics are quite often aligned with topics published within project.hope community. Perhaps you could consider posting within our hive in the future.
Yours
Piotr
The police officer narrative may not be the best, politicians may be more appropriate. But seeking apologies from either group is pointless.
I agree, we little people are being pushed around, but we aren't completely being left out. Let's keep making our voices heard.
I will take a look at your community, but I find it very difficult to browse so many, it's difficult.
I disagree with the statement that the witnesses failed to secure the chain because of anything that they did or failed to do. In my comments I mentioned that the DPOS model has some issues but that has nothing to do with the actions of the block producers.
Hi @onthewayout
I'm not technical enough to understand how to perform those DPOS attacks or how to protect ourselfs from it. So I don't really have any opinion on that topic.
Who in your opinion is responsible for securing the chain?
Yours, Piotr
A chain that utilizes a DPOS design has several layers:
1- The developers that design the code.
2- The block producers (aka witnesses) that propose which code to run on the nodes.
3- The stakeholders that decide which block producers are elected.
Ultimately it is the stakeholders who are responsible. They are the ones who elect the block producers. You can have the best coders and people with the technical know-how to effectively run nodes in a DPOS chain but if they are not elected it means nothiing.
I agree with you that previous witnesses should come up with some solution.
Have a witness !BEER
_
_
100%, trust doesn't make the Blockchain decentralized. I won't vote for witnesses until I hear them taking about updating the governance system.
It happened once, has really been happening all along(1 whale vote=1000 plankton. Hardly decentralized) and needs to stop here.
Between a rock and a hard place, we contemplate the devil we know and the devil we don't.
Thanks!
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 15/20 - need recharge?)
Dear @phgnomo
Could you please change word starting on F to something else? Maybe F***d up ? Or even less offensive?
I wouldn't like to attract negative and hostile attention to our community.
Yours
@crypto.piotr
Sure. Just did. Sorry about that.
This is exactly why i dislike community functions. Freedom of speech is being attacked by NAZI moderation. Never self censor @phgnomo This is STEEM, you CANNOT be banned.
Dear @phgnomo
Unfortunatelly you're not making any sense. The fact is that I personally consider @phgnomo a good friend and we've been in touch for quite sometime.
Do you think that the factt that I asked politely to remove one particular word from the title gives you right to compare me to being NAZI?
Don't you think that you went little bit to far?
Regards
@crypto.piotr
True. @gray00 shouldn't say those words. After all it's all being stored on blockchain forever and cannot be changed. And calling anyone NAZI can easily end up in lawsuit.
Never called you a Nazi or implied you were. Lets not be that sensitive. Censorship is a tool used against , weaponized against millions of people every day. Why can't we build systems where users cannot be censored? Why can't people stop the projection of their values and beliefs on others. To love each other one must know each other. How can people know each other if they are all censored? A mute functionality exists for a specific reason.
Certainly, each blog is independent and each user can write in their own blog what they want, but when it is published in a community, it is accepted to share the set of minimum rules of coexistence, in case you are not willing to accept those rules, because There is no point staying in such a community, doing so would be a way of aggression against the other participants.
I think that one of the conventions around here was not to use foul language, explicitly offensive or directly swearing; that kind of words and language would attract unnecessary negative publicity and contradict what you want to achieve in living together.
Consider censorship such rules ... It is something that already falls in the field of opinions, after all, it may happen that any limitation is considered unpleasant (even those that are to maintain the coexistence and peace of the group to which belongs) and that everyone should do or say what they want regardless of the impact or damage that can occur to others, although in a way, I think that such behavior would be too selfish, harmful and antisocial.
It is a delicate situation. To reconcile I believe that it is the best way out for these cases, to unite, fight together to protect what belongs to us, raise our voices and not let things continue to twist.