You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Softfork 0.22.2 // The Steema Carta
regardless of the circumstances and I am not going to debate whether justin is good or bad, what we learned today is that our witnesses can and will change the code and execute it without having a single public conversation.
That will be remembered far after we've all forgotten whether we like or hate Justin Sun.
I am glad it happened now, big lesson.
Conversations take longer than 3 seconds.
Nobody likes this; but a supermajority of the witnesses did what we asked of them. They used their best judgement in defense of the chain.
Exactly. That pretty much sums up the entire purpose of mitigating the risk first and foremost, then informing the community and Steemit Inc's new ownership about the change.
There's really no other way to deal with an issue like this without signaling your intentions first, which then just allows the potential threat enough time to become an actual attack. Not saying that the new ownership would do that, but the security risk is too large to take that chance or to simply dismiss it.
That's how most of us view our actions and we are prepared for the consequences from our voters, should they disagree. Personally, I stand by this 100% and would have supported it if the rest of the witnesses had proposed it a couple of years ago.
This Is Not News.
I has happened numerous times before in cases where there were security issues. In fact I would go so far as to say it has happened with nearly every single blockchain including Bitcoin.
Agree or disagree with this particular soft fork,but the idea of code getting updated without public discussion is a part of reality. Transparency is good but everything being public to everyone all the time just does not work in this world.
No, it wasn't a discovered a security risk.
I get what you are saying. Again it isn't about Tron or Justin.
I accept the debate over whether this was a security risk
My point is that
has happened before, will happen again, happens on every blockchain and literally every piece of not-trivial software ever when doing so is considered necessary for security, and is not news.
This is the reality of Delegated Proof of Stake. The elected witnesses can do what they want, provided a supermajority amongst them is there.
As the general community, we can only vote with our stake. We reward good decisions by sustaining our vote for the witnesses or changing it when we feel witnesses do not act in a way we think is best for Steem.
But at no point a decision or action of the witnesses would require a public conversation. Not by design. I would say getting consensus between witnesses is already challenge enough.
Although my stake is very small, I've changed some of my witness votes in light of current events.
Agreed, it is DPOS in action and the distribution showed.
You are also right, that nothing says they HAVE to have a conversation.
I consider it a very big deal to disable someone's stake temporary or not.
The stake wasn't stolen it was purchased. People who didn't like the terms of the deal nullified at least temporarily.
I can't minimize that to a "security risk".
The purchased stake was under certain conditions. Be it 'social contract', be it 'intentions', it was never supposed to be sold. Therefore any deal on it might actually be considered illegitimate.
It's not just 'someone's' or 'anyone's' stake we are talking about here, it's very specifically the ninja-mined stake that has always been subject of much debate on- and offsteem. And also one of the biggest reasons for the bitcoin- and rest of crypto community at large to consider Steem a scam.
The conditions on this specific part of stake have now simply been formalized to code in a temporary soft fork.
Then again, I fully agree with you that disabling stake is a very big deal. People will interpret it and will judge it in various ways, drawing different conclusions. Also, not engaging with the community about these things but executing them without any warning will also be interpreted and judged in various ways.
At the very least I find it highly interesting and I find myself engaged with the drama. I'm following closely.
This is the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. We have all voted with our witness votes to make the top witnesses our representatives which does give them the power to act without consultation on matters where speed is of the essence.
I understand the tensions going on here, but it would appear that this unbelievably new form of governance is working and capable of making decisions swiftly. That is a good thing to know about.
Yes, agree. To be honest I was super surprised that the witnesses reached consensus. Extending the decision process to a fully democratic model can be done with gamification of the participants. I don’t see any other way for that to work with the decentralised scenario we are in ...
Posted using Partiko iOS
@whatsup,
[A copy-pasted comment from lower down in the comments section]
.
As I've written on countless occasions, one of STEEM/Steemit's most significant problems is that it is being run by a bunch of Millennials whose knowledge about anything even tangentially business-related is limited to writing computer code. This little caper though takes the cake.
Having been a hedge fund manager for 20 years (and hence someone extremely familiar with securities law) let me assure you, @aggroed and fellow witnesses, if @justinsunsteemit decides to commence legal proceedings ... you guys are going to jail.
Let me be clear ... not fines ... prison (although you'll undoubtedly suffer enormous financial penalties as well). And, what you have just done is waived a giant red flag BEGGING the SEC to prosecute as part of its ongoing efforts to "set high-profile examples" in the cryptosphere.
Do you know what: Steemit Inc. ... a "U.S. Person" + Justin Sun ... a "U.S. Person" + thousands of U.S. Steemians + U.S.-based nodes equals?
That's right, fellas ... U.S. jurisdiction.
Obviously it did not occur to any of you luminaries to first consult with an attorney. I know this for an absolute FACT without even having to ask because any first year law student would have told you, unambiguously, that what you were proposing was MASSIVELY ILLEGAL.
Here's my recommendations:
1.) Immediately reverse the softfork;
2.) BEG Justin not to destroy your lives.
And quoting the Magna Carta ... I'd pay USD$1,000 to see you make that argument in front of a judge.
Quill
Hi Quillfire,
While I don't pretend to know whether or not anyone has broken any laws here, anyone who has been anywhere near the legal system knows NOTHING is an open and shut case certainly not perceived verbal agreements. So, the going to jail thing is so over the top it pretty much cancels out the rest of anything you said. Not saying it couldn't happen, but.. come on..
All of the legalities around crypto are mostly untested.
Typical of your style... It's a bit dramatic.
Had you said, I seriously think you have broken some laws, which put you in danger of being prosecuted this might have made sense.
Anyway, good to see you.
@whatsup,
What are the Top 20 Witnesses trying to accomplish?
They're trying to FORCE @justinsunsteemit to agree not to vote his stake: and to wit, agree to forfeit his right to vote for Witnesses thereby guaranteeing that they (and their agenda) remain in control of the blockchain.
Their manner of coercion is to hold his holdings hostage. This deprives him of his right to challenge them or even sell his stake in an effort to exit the blockchain completely. If he wants his money, he must agree to their terms ... while under duress.
That's extortion.
Law.com's Definition of Extortion:
The speculation I've read is that he paid USD $10 million to buy out Steemit Inc. USD $10 million that he can't access or control unless he cedes to their coercive demands ... and you think I'm being a bit dramatic?
When I'm not fooling around in order to earn a few of your Drama Tokens, I hope you may have noticed that LOGIC is typical of my style.
Good to chat with you too. It's been awhile.
Quill
I do not the support nor endorse the direction they have taken.
Surprisingly so far Justin seems to be taking it better than I would have.
Next steps by both parties should be interesting
For the record, I agree with this ^
Agree with this 100%.
Principle compromised for Purpose. Tell me any exception of Justin's gallavanting across the blockchain and acquisitions market where it turned out well for both parties?
I completely agree. This is wrong. Stealing the guy's steem because you claim the seller was the thief is WEAK. All witnesses that didn't eradicate it when it was in Ned's hands are just as responsible and should resign. How could they let "stolen" steem exist on the blockchain when they were aware it was such? I hope they all have good lawyers because this could get really ugly.
And I agree, big lesson. It will be remembered for sure.
DPOS in action, the majority rules.
Actually, not the majority, rather the majority stake.
Very true, majority stake, you are correct.