You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is Steem Centrally Controlled?

in #stopthepowerdown5 years ago (edited)

While the sentiment in this post is admirable, one has to wonder why it took a week to come out and say you would never support something like hardforking out Steemit, Incs stake. This should have been immediately and categorically rejected. My understanding is several top witnesses actually debated this, and did so for more than a full day. When enough eyes see top witnesses seriously discussing merits and disadvantages of something that should have been categorically rejected, yeah it undermines confidence in security of the blockchain and in the capacity of top witnesses to set aside animosity toward Stinc for long enough to get heads out of asses. I don't blame Stinc at all for moving funds off platform.


I can't speak for others, but I was asked to be part of a committee this week which had members discussing these issues directly with Ned. Those discussions were not very fruitful (IMO). Our hope was to deal with this directly with Ned and ask for the power down to stop before it became a larger issue. As a member of that committee (I was voted in and didn't even really sign up to be on it), I agreed to the terms of the committee which was to keep things private as the discussions were on going. I'm a fan of radical transparency, so it was not my favorite thing to do, but I accepted it for the good of Steem. More information about those discussions will come out, I'm sure.

This powering down and selling of Steem via the Steemit accounts have been going on for at least a year. Why are you calling out for the power down to stop now? Why do you think it really has to do with the recent PR move?

This power down and selling of Steem is how Steemit Inc. has been making money all along.

It's the amount of power down that concerns people and how it was done in a defensive way as a demonstration of lack of trust of the witnesses. Going back to their original power down would at least be a step in the right direction. The reason this power down is gaining so much attention is the size and intention of it.

Think of the upside. Steemit Inc.'s share made the blockchain much more centralized. If they remove their stake, then that will make the blockchain not controlled to such a large degree by a single player.

That is actually a positive.

They could just move funds to the exchange, then to move it back to a set of anonymous accounts.
That makes the chain still controlled by a single player, but anonymously

It won't be anonymous, We are watching :)

Unless "you" are FBI I don't know why @bittrex would let you look into their books )

Why should it be categorically rejected?

I'm not saying it should be accepted or declined, but why? Especially "immediately". Shouldn't all such ideas be thought over for their merits and disadvantages?

Let's put it this way. If it takes you longer than it takes to read the words "proposed hardfork to remove stake from Steemit, Inc controlled accounts" to categorically reject same, you shouldn't be a top witness on Steem blockchain. It is that simple, and clear.

You can debate to what extent top witnesses should provide leadership for the blockchain, but you can't debate this one. Top witnesses have basically one job, which is maintaining security/integrity of the blockchain as the primary block producers. This proposal by definition goes against that primary mission. There isn't anything to think over for its merits.

They have that one job under the guidelines of Steemit. But nobody said those guidelines are "good."

I think it still doesn't explain why it's a bad idea. I think there are multiple reasons why it's bad, but I disagree it is so "obvious". I do think it has merits. And discussing those merits can then lead you to find a solution having those, without the downsides.

P.S. Saying "it is that simple and clear," or "everyone knows", etc. is demagoguery. It's not actually addressing the issue, but painting, "If you disagree, you're not one of us" or "If you disagree, you are irrational," which is a subtle way of making ad hominems. I am not saying this just to you, but I've discussed this in the past regarding rhetoric in academic circumstances, so I'd like to point it out. It's bad form to argue in this manner.

100% agree... well spoken.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.27
TRX 0.11
JST 0.032
BTC 64579.45
ETH 3101.05
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.83