You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement : Hardfork 0.23 (Codename: New Steem)

Now the problem arises from the interchange with exchanges. Since you got an existing asset, and are seizing existing funds of people, that would mean that exchanges accepting this code are also accepting the removal of funds of people outside of the scope of the actual protocol. None of the people whose funds were seized got their funds in an illegitimate way (through hacking or similar, like in the case of Ethereum). Thus, that is actually quite complicated.

In the case of Hive, a new asset was created and people got this NEW asset based on a set of rules. That is fine since no ones existing assets got altered in any way.

In terms of security, I hope you are doing your math right, the vast majority of the votes on the witnesses on the steem chain comes from steemit inc. While only 20-30% of the votes on the hive chain come from freedom + blocktrades. The problem arises if one single legal entity is able to vote in/out all consensus participants. (That's why Tron was assessed a security in a recent lawsuit).

Sort:  

It seems that you still don't get this part.

It would be totally fine if HIVE started from scratch. Who cares, and who may care about what the initial launchers would choose.

HIVE is not. It is literally a code-copy with all the history (posting, assets, etc). And then core HIVE guys transferred HIVE assets: see HIVE own transaction records as linked in the OP.

If what HIVE did is okay, this HF is totally fine too.


Moreover, there will be appeal process (likely via SPS) so community may change this witness decision if they would like to.


For the security part, it is not an important topic (for now, and for us) to discuss anyway - if someone wants to focus on this, he or she may pursue legal actions for it.

No, you are not getting it. It doesn't matter what Hive puts in their brand new database. If they copy in bitcoin blocks, ethereum blocks, whaleshare blocks. It's their database, they can fill it with all open source blockchain material they can.
And users can then accept to use it or not, and exchanges can accept to list it or not. But it's NEW. Even though they copied over state from steem. It's a new copy.

It doesn't matter if that past material comes from Steem. It's a new database that is filled with selective material.

Steem is an old database and you're removing material from the existing database in a hardfork.

Those are fundamentally different things.

You should then go speak with consensus witnesses on Hive since a lot of them were OK with nulling the stake of Steemit Inc several months back.

They accepted the idea to null Inc just because of consensus (regardless of the reasons), it's normal they said, but now you are preaching as everyone from Hive that taking a similar decision based on consensus is a problem?

yea,

Actually, they were not nulling it ever. The discussion was always ask Steemit Inc to null it themselves or start a new chain.

The discussion was always ask Steemit Inc to null it themselves or start a new chain.

No, we all read the leaked messages from the secret slack group.

Out of context, yes. No one was considering actually forking them out, the question was always either we leave, or they give up parts of that stake themselves.

The related PR on Github disagrees with you.

No one was considering actually forking them out

Again, the messages leaked by Ned prove the opposite

You can argue that a few didn't support the idea but most of them did.

It was a discussion. Ned posted half of the discussion, if most of them did, most of them would have forked Ned out a long time ago, that's a fact. Then we wouldn't be where we are now.

I for one did. And voted to undo the airdrop exclusion. I would have voted to not do this exclusion as well.

If someone told me early enough.

But both Hive and Steem seem to keep there votes secret until it's too late.

It seems that several points are being repeated. Let me focus on one thing.

Say (as you claim) HIVE is new.

then is it okay to move HIVE stakes? you can see the blockchain record. If there was no HIVE, then there cannot be any transfer. But there were transfers, which means that existing assets are illegally transferred.

In fact, steem.dao account still holds these "stolen" assets.

How can you explain this?

If the move of the assets is defined on the creation of hive and everyone that joins hive knows about this. Then it is fine. This makes this a part of the rule of the system.

(Similarly as inflation rewards, or witness voting, etc).

The problem is if you change the rules after releasing a chain. Then that is problematic.

When I look at the blockchain record, the transfer occurred before Hive blockchain started. You can see the record on the steem blockchain, and the action was completed by a Tron Foundation witness

https://steemd.com/b/41818752

Not sure what difference any of that might make, but there it is

Oi, this conversation has gone in circles. New assets are new assets. I could take a picture of a billionaires USD account and give him a token I just made up out of thin air and it isn't stealing anything. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for this other guy to understand.

Hive didn't start from scratch, it originated from the need of a part of Steem community that believed more strongly than the rest in the ethos of decentralization.

For your information Steem stayed for weeks under the full control of one entity (Justin Sun) who controlled all 20 witnesses spots with newly created sock puppets voted in by exchanges users funds and supposedly non-voting Steemit's pre-mine.

Whatever else you claim it started from was opensouce code in the public domain.

Spitting blockchain into two happens all the time. I think there are four Bitcoins chains and three Ethereum chains by now.

Those new chains always took new names and applied to exchanges to be added under those new names. Effectively doubling the coin for each user. Normal thing to do.

Confiscating coins is not something not at all normal. Confiscating is setting a bad precedence.

If Steem really wanted to get rid of the users they should have powered the accounts down, blocked them from power up.

And yet, Hive should have gone that route as well: Forced power down instead of airdrop exclusion.