You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Respect is all you have left in the morning."
Thanks for your feedback on this @valued-customer.
After having read @dhimmel's post I'm convinced
that a sisterchain is the correct response too. But,
I think it should be Sun that shoots himself in the
foot by making it. That way when the coin price
tanks, he's only got himself to blame. On the
other hand; If he stays and doesn't screw
himself over, that could work too?
Too late. He's dispelled the illusion of decentralization. I consider him voluntarily executing code that prevents him exercising governance, the exchanges also doing so, and a HF preventing hodling of stake nominal to that purpose being undertaken, highly unlikely.
Presently Steem is kill. It could come back to life, but so could any corpse with equal likelihood IMHO.
If we don't fork now and migrate, the community is kill too.
Thanks!
I'm not sure about the mechanics, but his post
suggests; If Sun forks, people can simply refuse
to run the new code resulting in parallel chain.
The witnesses on the parallel chain would run
a HF immediately freezing STINC Steem on the
new (not steemit chain.) This way, instead of
restricting access to his stake on the original
which would be akin to theft. Something new
happens and all that prior stake is restricted
on the new thing that he with his witnesses
merged away from. Basically, he'd be forking
himself over, and nerfing the value of his &
everyone else's stake. But at least the new
chain's reputation is in tact. We don't steal
stake, but if you upset the balance and fork
the chain over, you won't have access to said
stake on the new instance.
A fork is a fork. It's time to stick one in it, 'cuz it's done.
Thank you, I respect your opinion on the
matter. I just hope that if we have to fork,
the way in which it's done doesn't burn
us in the long run. I think Justin Sun did
probably want to conduct a takeover.
However, the chain and
community need a protection
mechanism for these types of
events, one that doesn't end up
burning the stake of stakeholders.
Basically, decentralization and dPoS
cannot live in harmony without a fix.
It might work for a while, but not for-
ever if we can't evolve the blockchain
into a thing that remains appealing
to the free marketplace at large.
I vehemently agree that we need a way to separate stake from governance, yet not neglect skin in the game. The traditional 1 person = 1 vote is quite difficult to implement when the people are virtual, and doesn't acknowledge how committed one is to governance.
I believe at the least we need to reform the witness voting mechanism such that 1 Steem = 1 witness vote, not 30 votes as it is now. I have detailed elsewhere how that deranges the weight of stake influencing governance, and how dramatically that centralizes governance. I will mention here the simplicity of implementing this change, as all it requires is 100% depletion of VP and 0% recharge. If the vote is withdrawn, recharge is instant to 100%. Most of the necessary code is already written for normal voting, and all that would be necessary would be to apply it to witness voting, and set the parameters appropriately.
But that isn't enough. Neither does limiting the number of witnesses an account can vote for, because some users have multiple accounts, which makes them more equal than others who have fewer. One user has told me they personally have ~10k accounts. They are very equal indeed.
I was enamored of the idea of oracles, which has been proposed to facilitate 1a1v (1 person = 1 vote), but with @ned's passing from our social confines, I have not heard again of this facility. Oracles, if they could be made to work as has been proposed, could prevent my overly equal acquaintance from being 10k fold equal, and make limiting the number of witness votes an account can cast relevant by preventing a user from voting more than one account.
Mayhap that may come back to life apropos.
But, all of that is premature today, as without a consensus of community supported witnesses, none of these ideas, nor any others, could be implemented.
I suspect we are being baited into remaining intent on this blockchain by the lack of full application of stake Tron can deploy, to keep the community on this chain rather than building one free of the taint of the toxic founder's stake. It is clear to me that stake will never be properly applied to development now that Sun has it, and even if we do force him to not sell it for profit, his resentment will prevent it's whole hearted application for the good of the community.
Sun certainly views us as unruly thralls, at best. I find the idea that he might care one whit about us laughable, given his demeanor and actions.
So, I reckon we should fork, and hash out those details of improved security then.
Thanks!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I do so in the hope and expectation they inspire your own, which might benefit my understanding.
I think steem is a very amoral place, kind of like the world itself is very amoral. A person with shelter can forcibly kick someone out of a log cabin in the middle of a blizzard. When the guy is found frozen and dead, we humans will make judgments about the cause of death. Some will say the guy who forcibly kicked him out is a murderer. Some will say the guy who died, was an asshole anyway and had cruel intentions ever since his arrival.
On the other hand, if the guy with cruel intentions gets all riled-up and tries to lead a trek into the wilderness to find bigfoot. The fact he doesn't yield to the many warnings that conditions are unsafe for travel may lead to his untimely demise. Then, when they find his corpse; People will say poor shame, he should have taken the sober advice of those who knew better.
As far as nature or steem is concerned, a corpse is a corpse. Steem doesn't care who gets downvoted and why or who gets elected to witness and why. It doesn't care whether or not the chain is centralized or decentralized, but no matter which way this whole thing plays out, it will be the people who judge the actions of the new supreme leader of the one chain or the organic witnesses on the other.
Whatever we are to become, perception is half the battle and very important. And then we still have the problem of how to prevent the whole scenario from happening again by others who choose to invest heavily. Affixing social media to blockchain tech is a great solution for mining human creativity. However, with the seemingly unsolvable problems it creates, it makes you wonder if it should have ever been done in the first place.
Ultimately, we have people that believe in dPoS, and who believe in decentralization as well. We were sold a false bill of goods. Many of us were led on to believe that these two things go hand in hand. The potentially unsolvable problem and truth of the matter is that, eventually, one of these ideologies destroys the other.
Additional thoughts: If community witnesses initiate the fork and null his stake, that sends a strong market signal that the community is shunning dPoS when it becomes an inconvenience. If J.S. and his astroturf witnesses initiate the fork, he's sending a clear message that he's shunning decentralization. This is why I like that one guy's solution, where we stop worrying, do nothing and wait for J.S. to do it, and the community witnesses can shun his duplicate stake on the sister chain that resulted from his hasty decision making. This is akin to the people choosing not to follow the guy who is looking for bigfoot into the wilderness in the middle of a blizzard, and we can retain the respect of the cryptosphere by not being those who kicked him out of the cabin. Better for him to slay his investment through his actions, than us through ours. I might be speaking out of school in assuming that dhimmel's solution is viable, but if it is, it sounds like the best path to me.