You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Crush the Bid: Rethinking bidding bots
That's the thing... I actually like it here.
I'm not trying to establish a centralized authority. I'm not saying that @earthnation should set the standards. I definitely don't think their numbers should be arbitrarily followed.
I don't like centralized authority, and I'm not a big fan of government stepping in. But that's why the community needs to take action on our own. If we do, then... nothing to see here, move along. If we don't, then others will take action for us, and we won't like it.
It ties back to what @dan said about effective governance. Which is ironic, because I thought I disagreed with him. I guess I agreed with the philosophy, but not his planned approach. The devil is in the details.
A tough call. Fact is your vote is yours to do with as you please. We do have a group that can step in. They step in at planned hard forks. They are called the witnesses. That is why you see people and groups of people wanting to be witnesses. They are pretty much the community backbone. They governing body if you like.
My vote is my vote, I use it as I please if it does not violate what the rules say, not as someone else wants to direct me to use it.
If you have not voted for some witnesses, find some with a philosophy you can follow with few regrets and vote for them.
To be clear, I'm not calling for action from the witnesses (as witnesses - some are bot owners, and I am calling for action from them) or suggesting a protocol change. The witnesses are the guardians of the protocol and keepers of the blockchain. They are not a governing body for what happens on it.
In this case, no action from the witnesses is required. There are enough market incentives in place that if the industry leaders take action the other participants would feel competitive pressures to fall in line.
I have four spots open. Any suggestions?
Not really, I have a lot of open spots, I add them as I find them. I did not mean to imply they were a governing body, they are the ones who indirectly control the direction steemit moves, at least that is how I understand it, they are the ones who make the hard fork decisions.
I don't really want to see a governing body on steemit I guess. I like the way it is set up now. If people have a real issue, it seems to get discussed and then taken care of.
Example, the cryptanalysis guy haejin or something like that and berniesanders feud - pretty much settled between them. Did a governing body need to step in?
The guy that was running a so-called bank on steemit and offering outrage ROI - most of the people that bought into that lie were taken care of by a user, no governing body needed.
So I guess I just do not see a need for a governing body. All they will do is tell you how to be good little facebooker, youtubers, and googleliters. So far all the post that call for a governing body for this reason or that, well, to be honest, I have not seen what the imagined problem is. Maybe I am just blind. But nice discussion, thank you for being concerned with something you feel is an issue, all I am concerned with is we do not throw the baby out with the bath water kind of thing.
I absolutely agree with you. I'm not trying to get a governing body in place, but to get the bidding bot industry leaders to step up, decide on ethical standards amongst themselves, and self-police their little niche businesses.
Their doing so would significantly decrease the likelihood of some outside governing body coming in and shutting them all down with sever fines and jail time.