RE: "Respect is all you have left in the morning."
"Pay the man his money."
This was my initial response the the Soft Fork (in fact, that's a direct quote from my post on the matter). However, since then Tron has executed the threat the Soft Fork was intended to prevent, and it's no longer possible to do this. The Tron stake is large enough that the Steem governance mechanism breaks down when that stake is applied to it. That stake has been applied to it, and the governance mechanism has broken.
The only way that stake can exist and Steem remain viable is if it declines voting rights, which it has not done. Therefore Steem is not viable, and DPoS has proven to not have been instituted functionally via Steem. Only @ned allowed it to appear to be viable by not exercising his sole option to undertake governance at will during his possession of it. @ned is no longer in control of that stake, and that allowance no longer pertains. Had Sun understood this, he would not have done what he did, because destroying Steem destroys the value of his stake, but he did not (or he did not care), and he destroyed the value of his stake by assuming control of governance of Steem with it, because he destroyed the viability of Steem by doing so.
So, those are done deals. All we can do now is proceed to undertake a project that may be viable, unlike Steem today. Given that Steem approaches viability and only the existence of stakes large enough to take over governance breaks it, it seems possible to adapt the Steem protocols and migrate the community to a new blockchain that prevents such a stake from being instituted.
If one party can control governance, and that party isn't @ned who can be trusted to not do so, Steem is no longer viable, and that's just the fact.
Since that is demonstrated today, it's time to move on to things that are possible. There is a question as to whether Steem can be forked to a new chain that may be viable, and I am awaiting the community's arrival at this conclusion and implementation of it. Until then, I can still post and discuss here, so I do.
Thanks!
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.