RE: The Announcement of Hardfork 23.0
I agree with a lot of this aside from:
No, you have destroyed Steem.
But I agree that seizing funds in both cases was wrong. I will say that on Steem there were blatant attacks against the chain by some of the witnesses who had stake removed, and it is arguable that it was done in protection of the chain. My problem is that there was very little notice, and no recognition of what each of the users had done as individuals that merited seizing their stake.
In similar regards, the Hive fork was also with very little notice (the code was published the morning of, and that is when we found out we were on the blacklist), and its seizing of funds wasn't based on any attack that had happened. It was in order to protect from possible attacks. Many users who had their funds seized (such as myself) were voting for several Hive witnesses along with Tron witnesses. I can't speak for others, but my father and I (and likely the Korean proxy) did this to ensure that neither party gained full control.
In both cases, I think that you are right that the action of seizing funds taints the chain, and looks horrible to potential investors. Especially when the account the funds are sent to is not even secure.
Agreed, I never voted for the other witnesses, but I too thought the stale mate would keep the chain safe until things calmed down. So, I can totally understand that.
I have to side with the hive team that they can pick and choose who they gave the tokens to, but it just caused a lot of bad feelings that I am not sure were worth it in their eyes.
Mostly though, I just no longer trust this deployment of DPOS on either chain and feel frustrated there isn't a greater level of respect for Stake. Investors should avoid.
In regards to Hive, have you seen this? I think it proves that we were given tokens and then the tokens were taken away.
I agree a lot about DPOS. I actually wonder if it would be better to redesign the governance entirely.
I wonder if having 3 groups of 10 main witnesses elected differently would be a good solution. For instance, 10 witnesses chosen by the stake voting for them, 10 chosen for the number of active accounts voting for them, and 10 with the largest amount stake in their wallet that decide to become witnesses. The 10 with the largest stake can either choose to become a witness, or choose to use their stake to vote for the stake based voting. I think this (or something like it) would help to create a much better system of checks and balances. I also wonder if there can be a way to have a community veto of a hardfork or soft fork by allowing the community to vote on it a week prior (or some other method).
Whatever the system becomes, I definitely think it needs to be changed. We plan to possibly write a post about it some day.
No, I hadn't seen it.
At the end of the day for me, this deployment of DPOS has proven a handful of people can not only make undisclosed changes, send false signals but also tamper with stake. That goes against everything I wanted from crypto.
Still could be an okay blogging platform.
It was wrong in all three cases. To protect the chain a forced power down would have been enough. The witnesses of both chains did the worse they for trust they could do: freeze and seize funds.
Yes, I did not agree with freezing funds either (though there were also two instances of freezing. The first being of Steemit's funds, the second being sf 22.8888).
I will say that seizing funds was something intended for the protocol by Dan Larimer when he creatted DPos. That article is from my father @remlaps.
Though I had not heard of the idea of a forced power down. That might have been a good solution!
If a potentially malicious account is powered down it can't do any damage any more. The account can cash in its STEEM and SDB and leave then chain or challenge the decision and if successful power up again.
One thing that must be considered is the possibility of a malicious account sending to the exchange, and then sending their funds to a different account to power up. Though I would say that in this case, I think all of the users effected were already powering down and leaving, so I think your solution would have worked.
You're funds weren't seized, just not duplicated. You can convert your steem to hive at anytime.
Except they were duplicated.
There's the block from the hive explorer showing how many funds I had that were transferred out of my account.
Lol, it wasn't transferred...and you know this!
Just a FYI, I voted to approve all airdrops. So I believe you deserve the mirrored funds, but again, nothing was taken from you.
Thank you very much for your vote! I appreciate it a lot!
I must say that I disagree, but what's in the past is in the past. I'm just never gonna use Hive.
Again, thanks a lot!
Or you can use it (with 5 HP) and keep explaining people that Hive is a fork, where your funds have been duplicated and deleted in these transactions you showed.
Because you are totally right. Just be ready to end up -12 rep
Yeah, I am already on the spamminator list. I don't care enough to stick around until I'm downvoted to negative 12. I didn't vote for centralization, and now I am going to use the platform that hasn't disrespected and disowned me.
I hear they are treating even you bas over there on hive lol. Watching them gloat about it is particularly disturbing. Sorry, off-putting is a better choice.
Their funds were duplicate and now in the @steem.dao acc. Source : https://peakd.com/proposal/@crypticat/burn-821-hbd-day
Correct, I just wish the pre Justin steem witnesses would take responsibility for seizing funds initially. They based it on pure imaginative cause and it wasn't right despite the spin being placed on it. Its quite rich to see the hive supporters now up in arms when steemit is now responding in kind with cause based on actions and not speculation.