You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: We are Making Good Progress
The date the account was created doesn't matter.
This account was created recently, but I, who manages this account, has already run a witness node for about a year. (@ayogom)
Thank you for commenting. I appreciate these new accounts may be run by people with experience on Steem. What was the highest rank you got as a witness? Were you a consensus witness? The point of my questions is to ascertain how much "community" token support you actually had prior to Tron taking over the chain.
Further, if you value blockchain technology and the decentralized consensus mechanisms that secure it, why would you put your support behind someone who is comfortable sybil attacking a blockchain? This goes against the very purpose of blockchain. Unless you can explain that to me, IMO, it invalidates you as being a witness anyone should ever vote for. It seems to me you don't understand what a blockchain is if you're okay with it being centralized.
If my memories are correct, my personal ranking has risen to 45th. I'm now a consensus witness.
Of course, I think blockchain should be decentralized.
So it's a pity for you to move to Hive. Through the separation of powers, we must check each other.
However, we tried to find a consensus on each other to narrow our position several times, but we couldn't find a conclusion.
Then why do you support Justin Sun who did the exact opposite to Steem and centralized it?
If regular token holders not using exchange stake or Steemit ninja-mined stake only supported you up to position 45, doesn't it seem a bit odd that you're now in consensus? Doesn't that seem like centralization if one person can do that?
I don't understand how you can come to consensus with someone who thinks it's perfectly okay to centralize and control, as a single individual, a blockchain.
I think we already have different opinions.
I don't want to persuade or explain you.
My support for Justun Sun was due to a funding freeze at 0.22.4444.
Because I also think that's not right with the blockchain spirit.
But I still love blockchain, and I can smile and cheer for you who are leaving.
Good luck!
Having one vote put you in the top 20 while the actual consensus witnesses move off site doesn't exactly make you a consensus witness, but if it makes you feel important, then good job. Who's a good boy?! You are!
If you Support Sun, you don't support decentralization. It's not just about Steemit, either. Meanwhile, on his own platform, he let his buddy CZ become NUMBER ONE SR by SEVERAL BILLION. Decentralized Internet, my ass. I'm supporting the little guy.
It's a pity you fail to see how unethical Justin is but hey, maybe one day you will realize you're shooting yourself in the foot. The best term I have for him is snake. He belongs in the scam section of bitcointalk
Unethical. Hes the biggest name in blockchain and does a tonne for the communities he's previously invested in. Tron runs great, BitTorrent is booming. Some of us actually like Justin and dont appreciate the unfounded accusations of scam for wanting to grow steemit from the dead shithole it had become.
I can see how you would be blind to his wrong doings because he's done a few good things. They are not unfounded accusations. He called existing witnesses hackers, and if you think the way in which he tried to take over top witness positions, using exchange funds and sock puppet accounts was ethical, then you are sadly mistaken. It's not unfounded that what he did was unethical. Nor is it unfounded that what he's doing is very scammy, shady, snakey stuff. Some of us don't appreciate the unfounded sybil attack that literally took place. Let's not forget that his shady business practices is what started this, regardless of what his intentions are/were. If you ask me, Bittorrent and tron are shitholes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a fact is that what he did was indeed unethical.
BitTorrent and tron have been steadily growing while steem sat stagnant. As someone participating in the tron community I see alot more progress. Dont be ignorant. Softforking his stake was unethical.
You are still blind to see the bigger picture here. Steem became stagnant because of bad ownership (Ned & Dan) but at least they understood what decentralized meant. The screen shot below screams red flags. You are being ignorant and closed minded. I don't care for Tron, and BitTorrent has always been shit in my opinion, but to change the ToS to state I am not allowed to promote third party websites OR eachother without justins permission? What kinda centralized censored north korean bullshit is that? While I realize it probably won't be strictly enforced, it's a massive red flag. Wake up. Justin is here to finish steem off once and for all.
It was always centralized though, that's just DPoS. As Aggroed said, he was the only consensus witness that got there without @freedom's vote. Justin or Freedom, either way, no witnesses were picked by the "community" but by a plutocracy of few very influential individuals that decide who is or isn't a witness. The little people might have had a smidge of an effect.
I'm not on Justin's side, but I get sick of the BS. All of this DPoS stuff is centralized. Its a step in the right direction, but if I am to have faith in Hive I need to see changes to how witnesses are selected and I need to see a change away from a plutocracy. I'm waiting to see that, until then, my faith in either chain is gone and I'm stuck believing in just BTC and ETH.
I hope the best for both chains. I hope Hive goes well, and I think it would be cool to see these two chains experiment with wildly different designs and see what the global population thinks about the two different paths.
BUT I will say, major props for being opposed to the blacklist. That shit is stupid. I actually defended the right of the devs to do it in a comment, because, well, no one has a right to have coins on a new network if the founders don't want them to have it. But I still think it is a bad PR move.
Yeah, bad PR move, but you're right, it's all voluntary and no one is entitled to anything.
Have any ideas? I've been working on blockchain governance stuff for a couple years now with eosDAC, EOS Foundation, and such. It's not an easy problem to solve. Easy to critique and complain about, difficult to make better. Most solutions not fully thought out fail due to sybil attack.
What I feel is the most fair thing to do is have network influence be based on stake length *stake amount. This allows for someone with 50k HIVE to have the same influence over the network as the person with 500K HIVE if the person with 50K HIVE is willing to stake for 10x the length of time.
The Polkadot blockchain is implementing this design for on-chain governance, and I think its a great way to do it. This allows people to have a larger share in decisions if they are willing to stick it out longer. I believe it would be good for the price too, because I bet you'd find a lot of people locking up their HIVE for years in order to have more influence.
Not a bad idea!
Your a real life traitor, that is actually the fitting word. One that can usually only be found in movies, but here you are.