Hive witnesses negotiated the voting strategy we used, then took our stake for using it
I am posting this here on Steem in case it is actively censored or downvoted on Hive. This is a record of how the strategy used for voting by the Korean proxy, as well as my father and I, was negotiated by the Hive witnesses. Now we are all being punished for it. Please share this.
Post begins here:
If you are not aware, proposals 101 and 102 discuss returning airdrops to voters who directly voted for 2 Tron witnesses, and voters who were proxied to vote for 2 Tron witnesses.
My father and I, and several of our accounts are in both of these lists:
- @cmp2020
- @cmp2020-pb
- @cub1
- @remlaps (only direct voter)
- @remlaps-lite
- @remlaps1
In this post, I will explain why we voted as we did, how the Hive witnesses negotiated what we did, and implore you to go and vote for proposals 101 and 102.
Why did we vote this way?
We did not vote for centralization as those who made the blacklist have suggested. We voted to try and maintain checks and balances between the Tron witnesses and the Hive witnesses (who were then Steem witnesses). Our thought was that if neither side had 17 representatives, then neither could do harm to the blockchain. In our view, both sides had done wrong.
The hive witness side froze stake out of nowhere in the dead of night without making any efforts to communicate their intentions with the community. This, through a chain of numerous events, is what sparked this whole controversy. We were very frightened at the idea of a group in power who is willing to freeze stake without warning, or consultation with the community.
In similar regards, we were very off-put by the actions of Tron in using the exchanges to overtake the chain. We did not like the precedent that it set, and we viewed it as equally wrong. We also did not like the idea of a few day power down that they attempted to push through, and we considered this a threat to the blockchain.
It was after this point that we began to vote for 5 witnesses from each camp to try to keep either faction from getting full control of the chain, and thereby force the two groups to come to consensus before large changes. This is the very definition of decentralization.
The Korean proxy also voted with this strategy in mind. Even @aggroed said that this was a good compromise. Here is one of his tweets:
[Note that the Steem (now Hive) witnesses apparently negotiated this compromise and later punished the Koreans for participating in it. In addition, they punished us for using the same strategy that they negotiated.]
The other 11 we voted for were witnesses who did not freeze stake, or participate in the Tron exchange takeover because we did not particularly want either group in power.
You may disagree about whether or not this strategy is adequate. But I hope we can agree that my father and I did not:
actively contributed to (and publicly declared support for) the centralization of the Steem Blockchain.
We actually actively contributed to (and publicly declared support for) the decentralization of the Steem blockchain using a strategy negotiated by @hiveio's own witnesses.
Conclusion
I am posting this in case any of my followers do not know that we are on the blacklist. I ask you all to vote for proposals 101 and 102. We should not be punished for voting for what we personally thought (and think) was best for the blockchain, and neither should the community of voters who voted through the Korean proxy. We all used a strategy that was negotiated by the witnesses.
You say "Hive witnesses" but cite only one witness. There are over a hundred witnesses. Do you have an idea of how many of those witnesses suggested attacking the chain would be a good idea? Even in the screen cap from Aggy, he says it was a vote to slow the attack and seemed like a good, temporary compromise. He doesn't exactly say "please vote for the attacker" as you seemed to take it
It's a hard situation to imagine - the chain is attacked and witnesses have the choice of having the chain destroyed immediately or having some time to act. Seems like you expected a show of gratitude for not voting soley for the attacker? Of course the real witnesses would prefer to not have the attack be immediately successful, but that doesn't mean they'd be happy about you attacking the chain
As much as I'd like to see people get stake on Hive, I don't think it's realistic. I've supported proposals for people that understand they attacked the chain and know to not do so in the future. My stake isn't enough to grant the proposal; they probably won't make it through the animosity. Claiming that attacking the chain is ok because some said they'd prefer it makes it seem like you still don't understand that you attacked the steem blockchain
Two main points seem to be driving you in that direction
You see Justin Sun as one faction and steemians as another faction. Justin Sun was actively attacking the steem blockchain. It'd be a bit like an intruder breaking into your neighbor's house and you join in with the intruder because there's only one intruder, but 3 people live in the house. Voting for multiple copies of a single actor is the very definition of an attack on a DPoS chain. I know people recently are trying to add all sorts of things that count as an "attack", but these are mostly new theories. The 51% attack to elect sock puppet witnesses has been described since before DPoS was even implemented. The solution given for this issue... repeatedly.... over the past seven years: remove the attacking stake
Defending the attack because someone said it would be ok. That's just not how it works. You can't steal your neighbor's TV and expect the cops to ignore it because someone walking by said stealing is ok
I'd say you have a better chance at getting stake in Hive if you understood these things, but we both know that'd be a lie. There is too much emotional insanity going on. At the most basic level: attacking stake was removed
It is a bummer you guys wound up in this position, but it isn't a punishment. If the attacking stake isn't removed, then the attack would still be live on the fork.... defeats the whole purpose. There is no KYC to determine people and accounts. Only that the attack occurred and we can see what stake engaged in the attack
For what it's worth, I also disagreed with the freezing of Steemit's stake. Witnesses need to be ready to fork out attacking stake, yes.... but that comes with the... ya know... attack. I don't believe in "preemptive strikes" or "hitting them first cuz you think they'll hit you" or whatever theory they used to justify freezing that stake. If I hadn't spent years in DPoS-land playing "what if?" games to find weaknesses and propose corrections, I may have wound up in the same boat you did
As an account with whom I had some engagement early on in my "journey" @cmp2020, I have elected to both read this post and take my time to capture this for you:
Whatever anyone may think, this has already been decided. The "big boys" have "weighed in" and 1,000s of smaller votes (like mine) will not even make a "dent" in changing the outcome ...
As much as I am prepared to invest my time (no ROI ...) into reading through the endless stream of comments, the gist of support for 103 appears to be its positioning as "a community vote UP or DOWN on whether they support the actions of all of those who put together the plan for the Hive blockchain." It is hard to imagine, therefore, those same accounts and their massive voting power wouldn't back it. As anyone can see ...
From there, it appears the "consensus" is that you and @remlaps (and anyone else who wishes to appeal) will have to decide whether it is a worthwhile investment of your time to make your individual cases for consideration.
P.S. I am in the same category as spelled out by your other commenter, in his (her?) last paragraph. Except I am not or ever will be a gamer. Simply an "old warhorse" who "predicted the future" of what was coming and got out of the way of it ... (Anyone interested will find my position spelled out in my own posts on the topic)