You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated
So instead of making a simple change like limiting the maximum number of witness votes an account can cast (which effectively would stop Justin from taking over) you lock his stake (that he bought!).
Sounds like commie bs to me.
Lots of solutions were thought of and none satisfied those requirements except this one:
Changing the way witnesses are voted is a heavy code change that cannot be taken lightly. And one that wouldn't really prevent that stake from being used to vote top 20 witnesses anyways, he can power down and put his stake on various accounts and call it a day.
He bought stake that was earmarked for a specific purpose, if ned sold steemit and then bought it again could he use this stake in whatever fashion he wants even though there was a social contract regarding this stake aka it would exclusively be used for steem development.
I have strongly advocated for the normalization of witness votes as you describe, by depleting the VP of witness votes 100%. I note that solution would not only eliminate the danger of the founder's stake executing instant governance of Steem, but would reduce the 30x multiplication of the influence of large stakeholders over witnesses as well.
Perhaps this route was taken because large stakeholders other than @justinsunsteemit were not impacted. While I understand the necessity of securing the decentralization of the blockchain, I note that the multiplication of the influence of large stakeholders 30x on witnesses is a dramatic reduction of decentralization.
In the near future, I suggest normalizing the influence of stake by effecting 1 Steem = 1 Witness vote, to end the dramatic inflation of influence presently granted substantial hodlings of stake, which is exactly why the founder's stake, now held by Tron, presents the centralizing potential noted.
Without debating the merits of that 'solution' (I don't believe it would work, nor that it is necessarily good for Steem overall), as a practical matter, that could only be done with a hard fork (which requires all nodes, including those supporting apps and exchanges to update), as well as the significant and complicated code changes mentioned by @howo, so not even feasible.
Thanks for explaining (simply) why this would be impossible with a soft fork.
That wouldn't have been a simple change and of course any application of mitigation strategies can change over time as reasonably plausible.
I'm wondering whether parts of this are a bit drastic, as well.
"Bullshit" is how that stake came to be...
He bought "dirty" stake that came with strings attached. Its his problem Ned fucked him over. He should take that to Ned.
STINC's stake is not the only Ninja Mined stake. But you probably know that already.
It is the only stake that was mined with privileged information about the situation, and the only stake mined by people in a position to guarantee the outcome by, for example, doing restart when things didn't go their way and then lying about it later.
There are some other acounts that were rumored by mined by insiders with some extra knowledge, but there isn't any real proof of it, certainly not enough for witnesses to take action on the basis of mere suspicions. Moreover, unlike Steemit, the owners of those accounts did not literally go out and "sell" their project to the world on the basis of promises about the ninja-mined stake being earmarked to develop the ecosystem and distribute to new users.
https://steemit.com/hf222/@novacadian/for-the-record-in-regards-to-hf22-2
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. FWIW, I read every single one of those linked comments.