You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
Justin bought this stake, and if you want to counter it, buy more steem. Or, at least be consistent and include all ninjamined accounts.
To be clear, Justin's actions and FUD have made me greatly concerned about the future of Steem. But we all knew about the huge Steemit Inc stake and its potential for abuse. This is a stake-based platform, and in doing this, it will set a dangerous precedent in the future of the platform.
While everyone recognizes the fact that Justin made a purchase of a company and its holdings, with any merger/acquisition comes a process of due diligence. We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain and its excellent community first and foremost.
I would argue this soft fork goes against that. This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".
This stake is a piece of property that had specific terms of use on it. Take a look at the helpful roadmap link in the post. This mitigation is proposed, written and implemented by a group of people who believe in decentralization and the vision behind Steem building communities like nothing before it first and foremost.
So why didn't the fork happen when misterdelegation started delegating steem power, even though that stake was never to be using the reward pool?
Face it, there was no terms with this stake, there was only empty promises, which could have been handled in good faith by declining voting rights.
Because some people foolishly believed in Ned's good faith as a founder, bought into his continuous stream of empty promises, and others frankly were benefiting from the delegations and preferred to take the route of self-enrichment. That's a pattern that has played out over and over, but it doesn't mean that taking firm action to stop the misuse of the stake and general screwing over of the stakeholders and community at various different junctures wouldn't have been the right decision then, nor that it isn't now.
Now the same people who didn't have the foresight to enforce this "social contract" regarding steemit inc stake are making a seemingly emotional decision based on what might happen. I for one hold the people who have allowed the situation to get here more culpable than something that may happen because a questionable character bought @ned's bags.
Fair
This is a good question. I guess its because we all knew Ned and people normally like to believe that others are honest and are good. Declining voting rights is absolutely something that's a desirable outcome.
!SHADE 5
@guiltyparties you have received
5 SHADEfrom sgt-dan!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!
That view obviously has a very good point. And raises the question: is the motive for this action expediency motivated by fear? Does it violate basic principles of what the chain stands for in a "ends justifies the means" fallacy? Or it an example of the valid use of supermajority consensus to protect those very basic principles?
And this is the important question. Was this a blockchain protecting itself similar to a User Activated Soft Fork or something worse? Either way, the code is temporarily and can easily be changed.
It doesnt matter. The chain put itself over a disrupting and dangerous factor that threatened to dismantle the chain (be that only for PR purposes or not) on day 1...