You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Steem Centrally Controlled?
I think Ned's point isn't that he fears that the money could be taken from his account, but that it could happen.
So, he's doing the safe things. Not because he suspects anyone, but because as they say, high fences make for good neighbours - if he has nothing to worry about, then there'll be no cause for distrust.
And while you say you don't believe in these things, that's contingent, on you being a witness, etc. The fact of the matter is, these things are possible. So securing against them is prudent, not "disrespectful."
This is one I have to side with @ned on.
Also, you didn't actually address the question at the title. That's clickbait-title bordering. The answer, for those who wonder, is that yes, Steemit is centrally controlled.
If the CEO of Steemit, inc truly believes value is not safe in Steem accounts because he believes witnesses could taken it from them, then why would anyone ever trust the Steem blockchain? Just because BTC could theoretically suffer a 51% double spend attack, I don't see it happening any time soon. I think it's very damaging for the CEO of the company that designs much of this blockchain's code and holds the largest single stake in this blockchain to make such statements about the witnesses and back them up with action to remove their funds at such a massive rate (far more than is needed to cover Steemit expenses).
No cause for distrust of them hiding their stake? The actions of Steemit, inc over the past 2+ years tell me differently. So many missed promises, poorly governed delegation usages, flags which caused tons of drama... I could go on and on. There is no reason not to trust the witnesses and many reasons not to trust how this stake might be used once it is no longer transparently connected directly to Steemit, Inc.
I said Steem, not Steemit. I don't yet believe Steem is centrally controlled (though I certainly see the potential for it given Steemit's stake). We will find out. Asking a question in a post doesn't mean you have to answer the question. It could just be the start of a discussion.
@lukestokes
I normally do not comment much.
Think it was an excuse for them to move it.
All this comes from Steem.Inc
???
Steemit Accounts Not Secure , What A Load Off!
There have been a lot of excuses from Steemit, inc. Far too many.
Well, you at least need to address the question. It has to be a big part of the thrust you then make. It's an interesting question, if you focus on Steem, not Steemit. I still think it was the wrong title for this piece.
Now, I'm going to make two points, one big, one small.
Small point: You argue that one PR move shouldn't have motivated Ned to do what he has done. Yet, the biggest reason you provide against Ned's action is that it... gives off the wrong PR impression? I trust you can see how that's contradictory.
If PR matters, then as I mentioned, it gave Ned an idea, which he then acted on.
Big point:
You're making a big assumption here. The assumption is that the Steem blockchain is a secure place that we should trust.
Maybe, the truth is, that it isn't. That none of us should trust the blockchain. I think if anything, Ned's actions show us that this is indeed the case.
I said it in the comment you replied to. Ned's not showing distrust in the current witnesses. He's showing distrust in the system. Because the system working is contingent on who the current witnesses are, and what they think. And Ned knows how easy it is to change who the witnesses are by those with power.
That is also the real reason I wonder why he's done what he's done. He technically could just install the witnesses he wants with his stake, and ensure nothing he doesn't dislike happens.
Oh, what were we discussing? Right. Ned knowing how the system is broken, and that it working? Entirely contingent, nothing to rely on.
Steemit is centrally controlled. Steemit Inc. is centrally controlled. The person controlling them is telling you the system is not trustworthy, and you cling to the idea that it is as an assumption, as a *premise.
It isn't. It's never been. I've said before that we are only able to earn here so long the whales allow it. And that's just the tip.
The entire post was leading up to this conclusion:
Steemit's actions will answer the question because, IMO, they have the potential to centrally control the chain, just like all PoW mining farms have the potential to collude together and 51% attack the chain that feeds them.
To your small point, it's not about PR. It's about actions which are not in alignment with the best interests of the Steem community and are being called out as such.
I wouldn't have invested so much of the last two and half years of my life if I didn't believe this to some level. I wouldn't work hard as a witness if I didn't believe this.
Please, don't confuse Steem and Steemit. The centralization of Steemit, Inc and Steemit.com is the problem we've been working to address as a community for quite some time. It can be solved, but it involves Steemit, Inc giving up centralized control of it's massive stake (and hopefully in a way that doesn't harm the value of everyone else's stake).
I expect these conversations to move towards more decentralized, community-driven approaches for governance in the future. If they don't, Steem will continue to struggle.