RE: A Quick Note to Witnesses Supporting Forking Out Specific Stake
In DPoS structure I trust my stake to the governance
Yet the tipe of governance we have on Steemit is not the only possible one.
Now we operate under the rule that an entity controlling 50% of the stake can literaly appoint all the 19 top-witnesses and then eradicate anyones stake if feels like doing it.
From the beginning Steemit inc used to be such an entity and in fact did exsecute the abovementioned opportunity at least once.
However if you keep on selling at some point you'll face the situation when you are no more in the position of a dictator.
Right now Steemit inc seem to control about 35% of the stake. Still to early to be paranoid about 50% of stakeholders colluding against you ( and if not that the result would be just yet another Steem fork, of the tipe we've seen quite a few already )
However if the plan for Steemit inc is to keep on selling and CEO of Steemit inc do have good reasons to believe that anyone around is his enemy the solution is well known - to change the governance model the way excluding the option of the "51% attack".
Most simple way to do it is to implement the model when you vote with your stake just for one witness. And if you feel like voting for 30 witnesses you do it with 1/30 part of your stake.
The "drawback" of this system, which is actually should be considered an advantage in the current situation, is that if an entity is controlling about 10% of the stake it could appoint 3 top-witnesses and that would be enough to block any unwanted code change.
It's clear why Steemit inc didn't want implement this system from the beginning, a competitor might acquire 10% just to screw your business, but now it looks like time is ripe for the change.
I do understand what is going on, yet I wish it to be known that witnesses who would fork out stake are not to be trusted.
Because it could be your stake. I purposely expressed that I would not venture deeper in the debate. I said such in my opening paragraph. But thanks for elaborating. Yet, I am fully aware of the situation and did my DD before signing up to
Note that in this post I did not express any position about the situation. Those who have read me for a longer time may be able to guess how I feel about the situation. Please do your research before thinking extended explanations are needed for people to understand actualities. Thank you.
From your answer it looks like you also do realize that witnesses on the screenshot were elected precisely with the purpose to fork out someones stake.
July 2016 was even before HF9.
Btw, Steem does not own 50%. Anyway, let me try this again: you’re off topic, dude.
Lastly, currently around 15% stake is sufficient to define the governance. But, again, not the focus of this post. It isn’t because things happened in the past we have to support similar.
Unless, maybe we should tell them to also include your 6k stake when they fork out?
So if you would have the kindness to stay on topic, that would be appreciated. Thank you again.
You seem to be of topic with my comment too. I never said I support that. In fact I suggested a method to make such event even less likely.
Anyway your post did help me to summarize my own impressions from all the drama, thank you for that.