Logic:
Your story is this:
I took my son to a doctor, because he had trouble breathing. After the medical treatment my son could breath freely again.
Thus, you left out crucial details about how things came together.
Justin Sun not only announced some marketing things for Steemit! (Not Steem, Steemit!). But he also announced things like token-swap and taking all Steem dapps to tron smart contracts.
Witnesses tried to contact Steemit to get in contact and get relevant information.
Only then the softfork was decided.
Community could've voted out these witnesses if they were against the softfork (this did not happen, on contrary, witnesses against the softfork were voted out).
"External Security Experts". You mean Ned?
Edit: 6)
The witnesses ability to freeze someone's account over night without even talking to the community (which elects them and gives them their power to do so in the first place) clearly is a feature that should not exist in a decentralized blockchain.
It seems you got no idea about how DPoS blockchains work. Any consensus node can decide to "block certain transactions" at will in any blockchain (same applies to PoS and PoW).
Thus, if in DPoS a super majority blocks certain transactions to be included in blocks, the stake is practically frozen. This cannot not exist.
Edit2:
If in Bitcoin a few of the biggest mining pools decided certain transactions to be invalid from now on this would also lead to the same outcome.
I agree completely with everything you said but also wanted to point out that during the time before 22.2, while witnesses are reaching out to Justin but hearing crickets, Justin used his own stake to influence the Tron network after saying he would not use those voting rights.
The job of the witnesses are to protect the blockchain. I dare you to walk up to President Trump and shoot the guy standing beside him. I'm sure the secret service will just sit there and do nothing during an imminent threat.
Yes, you covered a few of the larger holes in @steemchillers narrative. Whether you choose to believe JSun's initial statements (move Steem to Tron blockchain, use contacts at exchanges to delist "old" Steem and list a "new" Steem (Tron token) or his second statements, it is misleading at best to leave out the first set of statements. IMO, there is no reason at all to believe that the first set of statements aren't exactly what JSun intended (and likely, intends) to do.
However, I think it is worse to leave out that news broke in the week after JSun's second statements (his statements to the effect that he would not vote witnesses and would not attempt to migrate chain to Tron) that JSun had already broken the exact same promise in the Tron ecosystem, and had used Tron Foundation genesis stake to vote in SR's (Tron equivalent of witnesses). Is there a meaningful difference between:
"JSun promised not to vote for witnesses, witnesses out of fear decided to freeze his stake anyway" and "JSun promised not to vote for witnesses, news came out that he had broken exact same promise not to vote in block producers with Tron genesis stake, and witnesses out of fear decided to freeze his stake"? Of course there is a very meaningful difference, and leaving out that part shows whose pocket you are in. Geez.
Then @steemchiller went ahead and lost his mind publicly with the "external security experts" line. Please look up what "decentralized" means. 20 puppet witnesses controlled by one individual is 100% clear, not an opinion, no two ways about it, centralization. A super majority of independent elected witnesses coming to a consensus is 100% clear, not an opnion, no two ways about it, decentralized governance in action. This last bit is not disputable, these are not opinions that can be thought about one way or another - centralization and decentralization are real words with clear definitions and @steemchiller has lost any credibility he may have had on this network with this stance.
I am not sure that we have ever had independently elected witnesses. Certainly not all top twenty.
Decentralization is a great idea and i support that wholeheartedly but how do we get that with stake based voting for witnesses?
The Steemit inc stake is not the only ninja mined stake out there, Maybe we need to freeze those other accounts stakes as well
For the purposes of comparing with 20 puppet witnesses controlled by a single account and basically voted for by one stake, the old top 20 were independently elected. In the old top 20 there was not a single witness with votes from both of the two largest voting stakes (pumpkin/freedom & blocktrades), and one witness had votes from neither (@aggroed). And even with how large the freedom vote is, when you look at the vote charts the "other" votes on top witnesses that are too small to list individually are collectively larger than the freedom vote, and then of course there is a whole slew of larger votes big enough to show up as a bar in the chart.
I used to be one of the operators of Curie while it was top 20, and am currently one of the admins of @c-squared (which was #38 active witness prior to JSun takeover). I can tell you that even getting up into the top 40 witnesses requires assembling a pretty broad coalition of support, and staying in top 20 position requires constant jockeying for votes.
Is it independently elected in a democratic sense where the average user can feel their vote counts as much as a whale? Nope. But without some kind of KYC / one account per person, that is a literal impossibility.
I would strongly agree with a change to current voting mechanism though to limit the influence of the largest stakes. Rather than reduce the number of witness votes I think the simplest way is simply 1 SP = 1 vote, and allow users to split up their SP among witness votes however they want.
I think most would agree that implementing a softfork could be intrepreted as a "passive agressive" stance, regardless. You mention Justin's team talking about token swaps and people trying to get to communicate with him. However, what this screams to me is a glaring lack of information from the outset. Information with which to preceed logically and united. There were too many unknowns on the table from both parties to make any kind of unformed decision at the start. That is so obvious to see. Anyhow, we are where we are now.
The SF was executed as an emergency defense mechanism put in place before Justin takes over this entire blockchain. But without having those "proper" talks in the beginning, can anyone absolutely guareentee that would have been the eventual outcome? No, is the answer to that question. We will never "100%" factually know now. So, given how this whole situation may very possibly be looked at in terms of a very dark "comedy of errors", I think plans to work together and work out any remaining differences would be the preferred approach. Unless the new goal is to run this blockchain into an early grave.
From whatever angle you see it. Either the information on token-swap and porting dapps over was correct and Justin is malicious or he completely failed to plan all of this and he is incompetent.
I don't agree on freezing the entire stake, in my opinion the softfork should only have included the "decline-voting-rights". However, I agree that measures had to be taken.
Exactly! These are simply your opinions given what you now know and which you are totally entitled to. And everyone will have their particular take on it. However, the problem is people are misconstruing their acquired knowledge as solid "fact" and thus pre-judging future situations which may or may not have been. A very dangerous road to tread at present. Do you feel the bloodlust in the air? The pitchforks and burning torchs are out in full effect. That's very worrying as until this mindset recedes, nothing will get resolved. Finger pointing and partaking in the blame game, is playground fodder. If anything, these factors will only contribute to making things worse.
If we are seen to the outside world as a small underdog fighting against the machine, that narrative will only last so long before we are then perceived as a bunch of stubborn troublemakers who refuse to back down and bargain with others. If this all began due to a breakdown in comminucation channels, should we then adopt the "eye for an eye" approach and create moree barriers? Again, I believe it will not end well if that is the chosen path.
A reset on emotions and thought processing will do us all the world of good. Forget the prejudice against Justin and continuing to treat him as the enemy. Shit went down from both sides, we get it. How can working in tandem for the furtherment of the Steem blockchain going forward, be a bad idea thereafter? Mutually beneficial deals can be reached. Somehow, I'm still hopefully of it as a final outcome for us as a community.
For sure, now we have to make things work somehow. I don't deny that. And I'm also 100% sure that we have to do this rationally and with a cold head. Insults don't bring us anywhere.
Bless, man. Here's to us "all" benefitting from rational and productive debate going forward. :)
So any new large whale investors should have their accounts frozen? i would love to freeze the voting bot accounts? whats their influence ?
And Justin stole money.
Can you please get sober?
I love drinking original green oatmeal.