RE: The recent controversy between Steemit Inc and the community - the premine, control, and where it leads this blockchain
timcliff [7:27 AM]
joined #steemit-stake along with Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive).
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [7:29 AM]
first we need to determine how much visible stake they have:
steem - 11.3 Mil SP + 45K STEEM
steemit - 44 Mil SP + 8.7K SBD + 1.064 Mil STEEM sent to bittrex
steemit2 - 10K SP
steemit3 - 3.6K STEEM
gsr-io - 730K STEEM (not sure if Steemit)
misterdelegation - 18.8 Mil SP (edited)
I think we can agree that only Steemit inc funds are in play and not Ned's personal funds
not those of other developers
crimsonclad [7:38 AM]
joined #steemit-stake.
timcliff [7:39 AM]
set the channel purpose: Discuss the details pertaining to Steemit's stake that is relevant to the conversation (which accounts, how much STEEM, power down rates, etc.)
timcliff [7:39 AM]
set the channel topic: Discuss the details pertaining to Steemit's stake that is relevant to the conversation (which accounts, how much STEEM, power down rates, etc.)
liberosist [8:10 AM]
joined #steemit-stake along with reggaemuffin.
timcliff [8:43 AM]
is there somebody that can monitor the list of accounts above (ned's as well) to see if there are any changes in the power down schedule?
pgarcgo [cervantes] [8:48 AM]
joined #steemit-stake along with smooth.
smooth [9:21 AM]
I don't agree that "Ned's personal funds" are a thing.
All of the founder accounts were vested as part of the ninjamine exactly like (and in fact on the same day) as the steemit account, with exactly the same privileged information about how the vesting system worked and how to ensure that it represented 80% of the total stake.
Moreover I am aware that there were various vesting contracts with some of the founders where their stake would revert back to steemit if they left, and some did indeed leave.
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [9:23 AM]
sure if we can find out about those vesting contracts would be good
to be fair if we go after neds funds we can't exclude dan's
and we don't want to target dan
so best to let ned be with his "hidden" funds
timcliff [9:24 AM]
Ned can't negotiate with Dan's funds
smooth [9:24 AM]
Generally speaking I would think that outside of a "no deal Brexit" (Steem-exit? Stexit?) where those engaging in a fork will just have to do their best to come up with whatever list they think is the right approach, a negotiated outcome should include an audit of these things as well as an audit of the stake that has already been sold and not yet spent. (edited)
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [9:25 AM]
we must take care not to overreach
i agree with audits
who do you propose does the audits?
smooth [9:25 AM]
@timcliff in the abstract it is not really clear what funds in which account belong to whom and for what reason as I mentioned. Without an audit we are guessing or relying on representations which I absolute do not trust.
An independent expert hired by steemit
Probably a public accountant working with a blockchain expert, i guess the selection of both should agreeable to both parties. I don't see a real obstacle.
timcliff [9:27 AM]
Ok, good idea. I'll edit
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [9:30 AM]
if they hire them they can get them to put in whatever facts they decide
don't assume all professionals are above board or not friends of Steemit
Ausbitbank [9:45 AM]
joined #steemit-stake.
smooth [10:52 AM]
@thecryptodrive You are right. Although I said "agreeable to both parties", in fact it may be necessary for each party to hire its own auditor. We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [10:54 AM]
Sure
themarkymark [11:23 AM]
joined #steemit-stake along with 3 others.
therealwolf [1:27 PM]
Have you seen that Steemit is powering down all of their stake?
This message was deleted.
timcliff [1:39 PM]
So the clock is ticking. That would mean every seven days we loose 1/13 of our negotiating power as well as the effectiveness of a lot of the solutions
therealwolf [1:40 PM]
I moved the message to general as only 12 people are in here in contrast to 30+ in general
followbtcnews [2:25 PM]
joined #steemit-stake along with Bhuz.
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [2:46 PM]
Actually we don't need to panic too much, they sent 1 mil to the exchange and their first powerdown is 2.6 mil
So that is within an acceptable retention they may be allowed to keep to cover short term costs
If we dont want them to have that then we price it in to the milestones, we say you have already kept x so we expect y deliverables in exchange before we issue another milestone for further pay
therealwolf [2:51 PM]
I agree - we should keep calm, but it seems that what we're doing is working
putting pressure on Steemit Inc
lukestokes [4:35 PM]
joined #steemit-stake along with 5 others.
timcliff [9:02 PM]
Is someone able to clarify which account(s) Steemit, Inc. actually started a full power down on?
blocktrades [9:03 PM]
https://steemd.com/@steemit
it wasn't a full power down, just a lot
timcliff [9:04 PM]
Is that the only one that they started powering down?
blocktrades [9:06 PM]
I don't know. Also as a side note, the probable reason it wasn't a full pd on that account was that it wasn't possible to do so immediately
First they had to wait for the return of 10 million SP that was delegated out (which came back 16 hours ago, apparently)
So all signs point to a planned full PD on that account
timcliff [9:07 PM]
sure, likely all that was possible at the time. my main question is if anything appears to have happened on any of their other accounts.
blocktrades [9:08 PM]
don't know, but if you have the accounts to check, just look on steemd like the link I sent
timcliff [9:41 PM]
Here is a summary of the stake being powered down based on the account list above. (afaik, gsr-io is a third-party)
steemit withdraw 34,014,847 SP from vesting
steemit2 No
steemit3 No
misterdelegation No```
themarkymark [11:24 PM]
Is Val-b a Steemit inc account or just investor?
Also wonder about cdec84
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [11:25 PM]
ex employee i think
val-b
timcliff [11:25 PM]
^ yes. afaik, @val-b was an original Steemit, Inc. employee. Pretty sure not there anymore
Ricardo Ferreira (thecryptodrive) [11:25 PM]
he was the frontend dev
themarkymark [11:25 PM]
https://i.imgur.com/Jg8I1Wz.png
https://i.imgur.com/Jg8I1Wz.png
that's a lot of steem for an ex employee
especially a front end dev
timcliff [11:26 PM]
pretty sure not working there was a result of the "purge" that occured with the 70%. no idea though - just kind of going off partial information and rumors :slightly_smiling_face:
themarkymark [11:27 PM]
up to 323K steem in a month, with multiple large monthly 100k+ steem leads me to believe it's not an "employee"
much less a web dev
timcliff [11:28 PM]
I also think he was one of the people named in the original whitepaper author list
he's always been one of the larger stakeholders
jesta [11:42 PM]
What I know lines up with what Tim said. He was a very early webdev, day 1, and if you look at the account creation dates he had an account before Ned.
Gandalf [11:51 PM]
It's Valentine. You guys should leave your basements once in a while :slightly_smiling_face: There's a life behind the firewall, really :joy: He was at SteemFest in Amsterdam and SteemFest2 in Lisbon.
smooth [12:21 AM]
val was a founder. I believe he left.
There were some vesting terms on founder accounts and I don't know the details. so it is not clear whether those accounts (including that one) may have reverted back to steemit upon founder departure (or not)
the val-a and val-b accounts were both staked from the ninja-mine along with other founder accounts
Gandalf [12:51 AM]
Who actually was in that founder group? People named in initial whitepaper?
smooth [2:01 AM]
Probably yes but you can see which accounts were staked from ninja-mine on day 1 of vesting
I believe all the (originally liquid) mined coins from accounts steemit1-steemitN were moved to steemit and then powered up to various accounts
Ayogom [6:36 PM]
I think maybe @gsr-io is ned's secret account.
If you look at the account that gsr-io has withdrawn to the exchange,
deepcrypto8 "101493714"
huobi-pro "135681"
This exchange account already has a record of remittance through the following account.
https://steemit.com/@brixtongg/transfers
https://steemit.com/@cdec84/transfers
And the history contains @Ned.
So I think gsr-io is a ned secret account.
whatsup [7:05 PM]
https://www.gsr.io/ ... Just in case you haven't seen it.
therealwolf [7:07 PM]
Can someone contact them and ask if they have a business relationship with Steemit Inc. .. just in case?
themarkymark [7:09 PM]
If they did, they wouldn't admit it.
If it is close to Ned or is Ned
and they likely can't due to privacy issues
I sure wouldn't want them telling random people I was a customer if I was. @
First of all, this is theft.
All the ad-hominem/political attacks on @ned and STINC do not make theft justifiable.
Secondly, this goes against one of the core principles of the blockchain - its most appealing value proposition - which is that your tokens cannot be taken away by anyone.
Principles aside, I think the forked version of Steem would not bode well.
1.) Most people are just "talkers" and not doers. They are complaining about problems, but will fail to materialize solutions.
2.) Decentralized "governance" has (to my knowledge) 0 historic proof of being effective.
3.) I seriously doubt that "the people" would magically pony up the resources to move Steem and its ecosystem forward. Without economic or other incentives, such behavior is irrational. Like it or not, STINC is the entity with most economic motivation to innovate/invest in Steem.
We have some friendly whales in the community, however making an assumption that they would gracefully and competently carry the project is risky.
Thus, my speculation is that if STINC were forcibly removed, Steem would most likely stagnate, have increased politics (bullshit) and die in an ETC-like fashion.
yup, it is theft...also, decentralized governance sucks ass (check bitshares).
So just because some version sucked ass it means it couldn't be improved on and made work right? That attitude would kill innovation instantly.
Good point. Agree on both examples.
It's as much theft as what's been done with the PreMine over the years... I say FORK'em and let the currencies that come after compete. I'll accept just about anything that get's rid of the actual problems of STEEM... Forking appears to be the only real way to get rid of him.
I'd like him to got to jail... but I'm an anarchist so whatever.
I'm shocked to hear that from you to be honest, unless you're just missing the context of this entire discussion.
So any selective snapshot, which does not include a specific actor, is "theft" in your opinion? Was it theft when Golos forked and assumed control of the premine?
(I'm pretty sure that happened, but was so long ago and that chain has all but failed at this point. It's hard to find info on it anymore. Either way this additional note is just to state that I'm not sure what the history was at that time.)
Yes, its theft, because it removes stake from 1 party, and the reduction of supply increases the value of remaining stake for everyone else. Practically this means that someone benefits from other persons forced loss.
With Golos its different, since they went on to create a new chain.
I think if someone forks-off Steem (hey, the code is open-source), removes people they don't like and airdrops to everyone else, its totally fine.
Any fork is always "a new chain". An existing unforked chain would continue with the existing consensus rules.
There may be one or two (or less likely, but possible in the case of a severe botch) no viable chains after a fork, depending on the actions of independent individuals in the ecosystem (users). By now in cryptocurrency we have seen every manner of forks which have intentionally or unintentionally resulted in new chains, and many which have not (but which could have).
In many cases a fork may be viewed as an upgrade in which essentially everyone participates and that is their choice, resulting in only one chain. But again, this is a matter of the choices people make and that is all.
There is no "reduction of supply" resulting from any fork, because even if the fork did do that, the larger supply still exists on the other fork if people choose to continue to use it. Arguably forks always create new supply, not reduce, and some have even made the case they are inherently "inflationary", which in some sense is strictly true but the economic reality is a bit more subtle (and off topic here).
In Steem people don't really have a choice - rather, the decision is made by the witnesses.
Theoretically perhaps, but unlikely in practice. In any case, a chain that is not recognized by the ticker symbol STEEM would have almost no value.
People always have a choice what code to run. If you don't like how things are working with the witnesses you can change the entire block production model if you want, and/or if existing witnesses don't participate in such a chain, the chain can limp along via backup witnesses until witnesses can be replaced.
What chains will continue and what price they will have is always speculation. Perhaps informed speculation, but still speculation. I don't agree with you that anything not with the magic S-T-E-E-M imprint on it would somehow become worthless, were it otherwise of value.
Moreover it isn't even a predetermined matter what symbol applies to which fork. If the Ethereum community (miners, users, exchanges, etc.) had ended up not supporting the anti-DAO hacker fork as they did, what is now called ETC would have ended up now being called ETH, and Vitalik said he was open to that possibility at the time.
Those clarifications were very much needed. I'm not sure why they were not more predominantly specified in any of the discussions.
I held those statements as correct.
There was never support to do this on the live chain, though it was discussed (as it should be to explore the consequences). I'd also argue that in the greater discussions, a new chain was actually discussed far more than doing this on the live chain.
Everyone who even mentioned the slightest support for the idea of a "Steem without Steemit Inc" never actually said "on the live blockchain".
The context here is incredibly important.
Thanks for clarifying. My points do not apply to new chains.
It's not because people would invest more time and energy on the steemit free chain that it's by any mean theft.
The forked chain might die, if they're worried about that it could mean they've contributed less than what what they've stalled.
BTW I have made zero commitments to that other hypothetical chain yet. Like almost everyone.
My understanding is predicated on the assumption that the fork being discussed here is applied to Steem chain itself. This is a contentious modification as it violates the core promise of blockchain systems.
If the intent is to create a new Steem-like chain that is not Steem, but based on Steem's codebase and modified state, well, I have no objections to that, and I wish the new project/chain best of luck.
And yes, I don't have the full context. I've been removed from "secret slack" a while ago...most likely due to inactivity.
Well man... this phrase resumes everything as always in here.
It doesn't even matter what we are talking about inside the chain... seems like a soAp opera and to be true the problem must not be so difficult to resolve.
We have many smart people... just can't understand why we keeps with that!
Peace V!
hmm Soup :)
hahaha good catch!
I wasn't sure if it was on purpose or not ;) I kind of liked a soup opera, was envisioning all kinds of soups with different roles, the happy tomato one, the sad broccoli and the easy going aubergine one..
Hahahah.... true!
Now we only have to figure out which one Ned is?
Hope we can be aware of the chance he is losing! So smart guy to ruin everything..let's see! Chances like this one you only have one in a lifetime...
Believe me that is Elon Musk fucked a car ten years ago in an explosion he could not make what Tesla is nowadays ;)
People remember, and always the bad moves.
If they forked out @steemit, I am pretty sure @steemit and @ned could create another fork, with @steemit's stake included.
It would break up the community and is NOT in the interest of Steemians @jesta. Witnesses appear to be overreaching their boundaries, and may be doing more harm than good.
You can't "fork out steemit". You can only create a new chain with new parameters and campaign for people to participate (i.e Golos). If people still run the software put out by Steemit Inc and visit steemit.com it'd be like nothing happened.
I don't think you are aware of the conversations witnesses had about nulling Steemit's passwords with a hardfork @riverhead.
It was discussed and the actual code was even posted on Github. That is what lead to @steemit Powering Down almost all of their stake.
Hello, with my qualities posts and content not getting enough visibility,
I would like to plead in any way whether you can help me out by delegating some amount of steem power to me for me to grow my account and curate more. I will be happy for your helping hand been rendered to me and i promise to make careful use of it and use it also to impact and grow others on steemit.
Thanks.
What's your position on EIP in HF21?
Agree 100% - Was there consensus for these proposals we see today?
Shame, Shame, Shame!!!
These weren't proposals... these were talking about "what if" and "how". No one actually proposed anything, the conversations never got far enough before Ned went on the offensive.
Somewhere in a hidden dark room on the interwebs we talk about "what if" and "how" and we don't tell others about it, its called a conspiracy ... consensus on opinion is all about dpos, when there is no consensus, it's should be dropped, done, move on, next....
I really don't have the patience to argue with you, but I'd recommend you ask questions and learn more before you start applying labels like "conspiracy" to this situation.
I'd recommend you focus on eos...
It'd probably be better for my sanity, that's for sure. The literal definition of insanity happens within the hidden dark rooms you talk of, not only in slack, but in the Steemit Inc offices.
Wait, who is talking anything about stealing Steemit Inc's assets on the blockchain they are right now? Nothing that currently exists would be destroyed with the fork.
To the rest, you might be right but we'll see. The ninja mined (stolen stake) has always been the anchor holding Steem back. I'm sure people will continue to choose decentralization over centralization.
Agree on everything you said. People are building castles in the sky and when things really start happening, they will have to wake up. ETH vs ETC was a good example. Personally I'd love to see a similar scenario just to sell the free coins and buy into the chain that has not committed "Theft".
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
If you are looking at this discussion and are asking yourself: Is there no witness out there that has a sense of reason.
Someone I can trust.
A witness that is not part of any secret slack and is not afraid to speak their mind because the witness has no political votes they rely on.
A witness that is very open about their own witness votes and give a monthly report about which witnesses they vote for and why.
A witness that is against forking out any account on the blockchain now and in the future and believes that anyone can do with their own Steempower whatever they want.
A witness that is active and develops for the blockchain and is also knowledgeable about projects on the blockchain because they are here every single day.
A witness that is 100% dedicated to Steem.
A witness that will fight for these ideals.
Then consider @blockbrothers. We are @s3rg3, @bennierex, @eqko, @brittandjosie and @exyle.
Level-headed and sincere Witness Group. I can vouch for these guys!
Geweldig!!! Verstop je niet... DPOS = Consensus of opinion.
No consensus = Move On, Drop it, Next Proposal!!!
Fishing for pumpkins?
Posted using Partiko Android
Sure why not :)
That would be ironic as pumpkin is most probably owned by steemit inc
Ned has several times over claimed to not have control over the @Pumpkin (Freedom) account and would sure as shit have unapproved all witnesses holding that accounts approval that would have Hijacked his accounts.
I know Ned has claimed he doesn't control Pumpkin. There are many hints that Steemit Inc control Pumpkin and I will share those hopefully soon. I don't know if they do but the facts are perplexing, to say the least.
That's an assumption.
People can draw whatever conclusions they want from the chat log that is shared here.
I would like to state a few things though - which I don't think these logs (with limited context) do a proper job framing. (None of what I have said here or elsewhere, in public or private, is in contradiction to these statements.)
timcliff set the channel purpose: Discuss the details pertaining to Steemit's stake that is relevant to the conversation (which accounts, how much STEEM, power down rates, etc.)My intention with the formation of this channel was to know how much stake Steemit had, and in which accounts, and whether they had reacted to what we were doing yet. I can see how it looks like an intention to proceed with an attack on those accounts, but it (as with a lot of the conversations) was intended for information gathering. This is still information that I am interested in having, and it has nothing to do with anything related to forking.I have documented my views on this whole property rights thing, in a reply to someone else's comment in another post. I'll put it here, so my views are clear:
Anyone can fork Steem at any time, as @smooth has put it, nothing is lost but something new is created. It's up to anyone to choose which fork they would support and could even support both chains.
When a witness publically support a fork that as little support then this witness is at high risk of getting vote out.
You are all acting like kids. It's not a good look.
He said, she said...
It's gross.
You're right. Acting like kids. But my money is real, not a toy.
Yep... Just remember anyone who wasn't working with the community prior to this ... Still isn't.
It's all virtue signaling. prepping for an up and coming custody fight for the community. Daddy's going to buy us ice cream and mommy is going to promise a better life and remind us when Daddy cheated.
Do I get to choose my ice cream? Or do I get stuck with strawberry?
But can't I get both? A better life and ice cream, hehe.
all this drama is making me feel dizzy. is steem fucked? @ned
While they are doing their best to fuck it. It's too soon to tell.
I agree. It feels as if we were moving in circles.
just lost my shit xD
This makes for interesting reading. But when you leave people with only a nuclear option to get their opinions taken seriously, you can't be surprised by the reaction.
As someone who as been using the steem blockchain for almost a year now, I can say the following:
Anyway, we are where we are. We can't rewrite the past. It's a shame that you are not able to take on feedback and grow with the project. Maybe it's time to accept that steem has outgrown steemit inc
It would be prudent for everyone to accept that steemit inc cannot be held accountable and the sooner we create a community lead development team to develop the code base the better.
Or we could just outsource the whole thing to Block One, IOHK, Blockstream or any other development team.
@kabir88
Wow Nail on the head....
I have been on the Steem Block Chain for a year and 9 months ago, I did the following cartoon...
If there is bondo which makes the paint job bubble on a car.
You can bet there is rust on the under chassis.
But I will say that @Ned is a young guy and it is obvious to me he has been learning on the Job, but leadership and management is a very different set tools then are needed for the marketing/ sales, and for innovation and development. And thruth be told it takes more than 2 years to know how to run a business with a million accounts and 100s of thousands of Users.
That's why most businesses (which SteemIt is) bring in different CEOs as it transitions to different sizes. Ned still should be a founder and beacon to bring people to the block chain, sitting on the Board of Directors, but he should bring a seasoned gray beard in who has dealt with transitioning technologies to Open Source Community building. That's what DEC did with Netscape / Mozilla. At&T did with Unix through bell labs...
All I know is that, it really all comes down to does @ned want to Steem to be around in 2 years or 30? Because I can tell you, with out knowing any of the specific politics and technologies out there,
Within 2 years there will be a blockchain that will be able to cheaply duplicate the the historical information on the Steem Blockchain and through compatibility mode run a virtual node that mimic's the actions of steem apps and api's. Making SteemIt Inc. virtually worthless unless they have further innovations which can only come from a large vibrant Open Source Development community.
After all everything on Steemit is on the wayback machine already....
And there is 1 positive about SteemIt divesting itself of it's Steem.
When it is bought by portfolio investors, which there are more of everyday now.
They lock it up on a wallet without powering it up.
That means scarer Steem ,
Scacer = higher price...
Note price increase since Hivemind, the annoucement and some divestment!
.24 to .43 in 6 days!!!! Without the rest of the market going up!
And as a business person thats important! Considering the average price I bought Steem at was $1.42!!!!!!
I'd agree with all your assessments, and add one more:
I was just thinking of the points that bug me, but I guess as a witness, that must be annoying.
You should checkout @dolphincouncil, we are trying to coordinate and if there is a fork needed, that would be a good group of people to have onside
Oh absolutely, and I'm glad you took the opportunity to illustrate the points that bug you. They all bug me as well, and I feel the same way, with just that one addition :)
This thread just went full !ned with that screen shot.
Enjoy your ned and don't forget to recommend nedcore!
I'd encourage everyone to read the above chat log. Put it in the context of:
The above was part of discussions.
As far as I'm concerned, all of these conversations should be public. I'd encourage you to share all the logs that you were a part of, I'd love for the community to see how you act in private. Especially the part about "extortion" and your other rhetoric.
These are leaked from a Slack I am excluded from.
Here's a congruent context ^
There's no getting around this basic tenet of what's transpired.
"These are leaked from a Slack I am excluded from."
You excluded yourself from everything by not speaking for a month and a half you fucking chump.
I hope they get rid of you bud... Seriously.
There were invite links sitting all over the slack you're part of. You didn't join it because you didn't click the link, you weren't excluded as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you didn't see them though because you left nearly every channel in your own Slack and stopped engaging.
Edit - maybe those links were deleted by the time you returned to slack, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong here.
Also just to reply to myself to add more context:
This "slack Ned was excluded from" was free for anyone to join for the longest period of time. Only after the point where Ned went on the offensive, were links removed and Steemit Inc employees not allowed access.
Fun fact: the entire reason the slack was created was because we (witnesses) needed a place we could talk with one of the top 20 witnesses. The reason we couldn't talk to him in the Steemit Inc paid-for slack was because Ned banned him for talking about another project he worked on, provided no explanation, and then days (weeks?) later he restored his access. As witnesses we needed a place, for emergencies, that we were all available and could communicate. So we created a new (free) slack community.
The fun fact is correct. However, the ban of the top 20 witness was not clearly "for talking about another project". In fact it was abrupt and done without any explanation at all (as far as I know, to this day there still has not been one).
It put the Steem blockchain at risk (granted small risk in practice since it was only one witness) because of the inability of an elected top 20 witness to communicate with the developer team in the event of chain emergencies (malfunction, critical vulnerability, etc.) which has happened before and required coordination between these parties to address.
I believe my assumption as to the reason was based on a statement (likely speculation) made by the individual who was banned.
Though you're absolutely right, we have no idea why. Thanks for the correction.
who was banned and on which project was he working?
also why did never a new community driven chain start? as you've stated it was not ment to be an on-chain solution..
and now steem is not interesting anymore..?
You need to save steem, you need the users and unfortunately reassurance is part of that and you have only started to realise how important that is because people have started to panic and think removing you/steemit is the answer. Time to speak up.
Thanks for the context. It does appear, on the surface, as "scheming" when read in a bubble.
It's Ned trying to twist the narrative from what it actually was. That's this entire situation in a nut shell.
great
first rule of fightclub is that we don't talk about fightclub
CSI steem edition, we're going to need a rape kit...
Posted using Partiko Android
And where is the famous blockchain transparency you're all talking about?
...this is insane.
Which part? The lack of context or the fact that Ned was planting spies in a group just trying to have a conversation about an idea, without the fear of being banned from the slack he pays for?
Isn't Slack free?
There's free and paid plans, the paid plans offer a lot more message retention and features. I think the free version only records the last 10k messages, and in an active community, that 10k limit is hit pretty quick.
There must be some really magical "context" hiding somewhere if you're implying that's all that's needed to make any of this seem okay. It just might be a difference/disagreement in values, but I've read all the posts by everyone who's given one, and what's being talked about here, compared to the implied state of the conversation of these "ideas", feels like this wasn't an overreaction and it also seems like this was more than spitballing ideas.
I shared the context in another comment, but the context was an open discussion about "what would it take to create a blockchain without Steemit Inc in control of it". Discussions were had about what it would take, who would be involved, and what the implications of these changes would be.
If you went through the same steps and replaced Steemit Inc with my name, I don't consider that a threat to me. Fork away and the best of luck.
Also to add to the context: no one ever specifically committed to "let's do this on the live Steem blockchain". You wouldn't make a decision like that unless you got to the point of knowing what it would take, who would be involved, and what the implications would be...
Really? You don't seem to care much about your stake then. I definitely would start a power down and try to save whatever I could.
On the other hand, I'd try to communicate a lot more and earlier, so I don't think I would find myself in that situation.
A fork is a fork, and in the event of a fork there's always the option for two chains to exist. The chain that has my balance could still exist, and it's probably the one I'd personally support.
I totally agree, I'd probably try my hardest to communicate with whoever is even talking about it, to see if there's some sort of remedy to the situation that didn't involve all the work involved in a fork. Sadly that didn't happen, and here we are today.
Not sure if I read the specific comment you're referring to, but this was the general gist of what I'd gathered so far, but I read this as "we were just having a casual what if conversation about what if we bankrupted Steemit Inc and stole all of Ned's STEEM."
which I think is insane. I'm trying to think of a less sensationalist word than "insane", but...yea I can't. It's pretty insane.
I appreciated your post because it feels like you were just trying to keep it real, and let us know where you stood so let's keep keeping it real and not pretend that all accounts are created equal. If you, or me, or any other account on the platform other than about 30 powered down and disappeared no one would bat an eye. But forking out Steemit and Ned would not only represent a substantial shift in power in stake holdings, but would also irreparably damage the main developer of the blockchain, these two situations are not comparable.
If I were Ned, why in Gods name would I risk letting things get to THAT point, it's already too late if the discussion escalates to let's push this on the blockchain. The fact that this was on the table is a clear and present danger and I think anyone smart would do exactly what Ned is doing. That's just my opinion.
I think that's a false premise.
Regardless of how the fork occurred, we'd have 2 "Steem" blockchains, one with a Steemit Inc balance (which they could use for funding) and one chain without it (which they wouldn't then be able to control).
If, in the event that a fork like this, were it pushed onto the live Steem blockchain (an idea no one actively supported) - you don't think Steemit Inc would just create their own fork reverting the change? I'm 99% positive they would, and then they'd change steemit.com to use that blockchain. They'd also use their exchange contacts to ensure it's listed on exchanges and traded.
I am, and thank you for the dialog on all of this. It's been interesting to engage the community on these topics and try to actually get a bit of less-sensationalized thoughts out there. There's a ton of misinformation and speculation, not only on Steem, but across all communication channels that Steem token holders use.
It's been incredibly time consuming this weekend to deal with it, which I can't always do, but I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk about this stuff.
Do you still feel this way after knowing that regardless of how a fork was performed, that Ned/Steemit Inc could just as easily deploy their own "Steem" reverting the fork, do you still feel this way?
The only thing this powerdown and move to exchanges is doing is reducing transparency and accountability. No matter what the outcome of the events are of any scenario described, there was always an option for Steemit Inc to continue on like they are today. We would just have two independent chains and some headaches.
Also to be clear, I'm still not supporting a fork, just playing through ideas.
Ahh, okay. No, I didn't understand this aspect of it. I would imagine that maybe a lot of people looking into this don't understand this part.(maybe I'm wrong) I'd have probably led with/put more emphasis on this part of your stance.
So for me this does take it out of the "theft" territory and it is definitely not as extreme as I'd first imagined.
That said, I still can't disagree with what Ned is doing from a business perspective. That fork would definitely be harmful to Steemit Inc. and if I were the CEO of that company it would be my job to protect my company and it's assets with whatever levers I have at my disposal.
This is in line with people's(yours, I forget) complaints that he has put company over community. As CEO, the reality is that's his job. Obviously the best case scenario from their point of view are things that are good for both. Maybe the road forward is considering ideas that don't throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Noted, thanks! I put so much time in that post that by the end of day 3, I don't think I had a great grasp on the entire message.
I understand that, and I'd probably consider the same actions. However, I'd also consider the other side effects that the action would cause.
In this specific example, that action caused a scare in the community, and degraded any level of transparency into the organization.
Is that worth protecting the companies aspect from an unknown risk? That ends up being a subjective call.
If I were the CEO, I probably would have engaged in a conversation rather than taking actions and going on the offensive. I know that if a fork occurs on the live network it'd be a headache, but nothing irreversible.
We've talked for years at this point about many more "Steemit Inc Friendly" options, I think this instance was just one of the first where Steemit Inc had no control over the direction, nor any willingness to engage and learn why it was being discussed.
After things calm down again hopefully we'll be able to look at how this situation unfolded and learn how better to approach more "dangerous" issues like this one. Probably (and unfortunately) it will require more privacy while the core concept is worked out, after which it would be made completely public as the idea is considered by the larger community.
And immediate trust that Steemit Inc is acting rationally.
I can't remember the last time I had that trust.