"So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20."
I'm not in the top 20. GuiltyParties is not in the top 20. Netuoso is not in the top 20. Nextgen is not in the top 20. Neither is SteemPeak, Actifit, Abit, liondani, riverhead, bhuz, pfunk, arcange, jackmiller, c-squared, mahdiyari...
Neither is theycallmedan or johal or Transisto.
There were plenty of people engaged in discussions over the past 10 days and plenty of witnesses that were not in the top 20 who were very vocal and very much involved in the entire process. To paint this as a "protective move simply for the top 20" is just factually incorrect. You guys can repeat it all you want, but the truth says the exact opposite, as you can see by the number of people who began running the code last night. There are witnesses all the way down in the 80s now running this version.
In fact, a pretty large majority of witnesses are now running version 0.22.2, so it seems that continuing to paint this as only a top-20 undertaking or protective measure is just a flat-out and provable lie.
"So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20."
for one, I am pretty sure no one did this to protect their position. As I outlined in my post, this was done having Steem at heart. All for Steem. Steemit Inc's stake as far as we can tell is not voting for witnesses, so that would not change. It is preventing the Steemit Inc stake specifically, which is bound to social contracts, to vote. As they where not voting anyhow obviously this doesn't change anything.
Or are you suggesting that Top20 (or better said all participating witnesses including even more beyond top20) were afraid of being removed (by using that big Steemit inc stake) because not in line with the "Tron Vision"?
Good. Justin Sun hoovers up I.T. and blockchain tech assets for the CCP. It's highly speculative to imagine any other outcome for STEEM blockchain than being disassembled and picked apart like a carcass for the fattening of one other.
all this was communication shitshow. we will assimilate steem and swap your steem for whatever tron token. we have no intention to do that, for now. Steemit employes say no one in talks with them said anything about assimilation and swapping, then two hours later Justin on twitter again tweets about assimilation...
i would like to think that if Elon bought it and started talking about moving steem to another blockchain and swapping steem for some kind of SMT that they would do the same.
Some feared he would start voting for witnesses with the stake. So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20.
I am not in the top 20 and I may be suffering even more from having made this decision. My very first reaction was, like @exyle, "no way to freeze account assets!"
Then I have read the concern of everybody, agreeing or disagreeing, and would have it been a matter of position in the witness ranking, I would have NOT supported it.
The main goal has always been to avoid one single entity throwing out all top 30 witnesses to (brute) force the adoption of a non-Steem community agreed switch to TRON.
The main goal has always been to avoid one single entity throwing out all top 30 witnesses ...
Why not just reduce the number of witnesses one single account can vote for?
Five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be enough!
At least it would make it somewhat harder for one entity to control the whole blockchain. I know it would still be possible to use multiple accounts for witness voting, but in that case the stake had to be spread on different account which resulted in less voting power.
Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.
Why not just reduce the number of witnesses one single account can vote for?
While this is something I would like to see, it is a major change in governance that should be discussed (and it has already been at length) and will require a hard fork.
I'm not in the top 20. GuiltyParties is not in the top 20. Netuoso is not in the top 20. Nextgen is not in the top 20. Neither is SteemPeak, Actifit, Abit, liondani, riverhead, bhuz, pfunk, arcange, jackmiller, c-squared, mahdiyari...
Neither is theycallmedan or johal or Transisto.
There were plenty of people engaged in discussions over the past 10 days and plenty of witnesses that were not in the top 20 who were very vocal and very much involved in the entire process. To paint this as a "protective move simply for the top 20" is just factually incorrect. You guys can repeat it all you want, but the truth says the exact opposite, as you can see by the number of people who began running the code last night. There are witnesses all the way down in the 80s now running this version.
In fact, a pretty large majority of witnesses are now running version 0.22.2, so it seems that continuing to paint this as only a top-20 undertaking or protective measure is just a flat-out and provable lie.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
for one, I am pretty sure no one did this to protect their position. As I outlined in my post, this was done having Steem at heart. All for Steem. Steemit Inc's stake as far as we can tell is not voting for witnesses, so that would not change. It is preventing the Steemit Inc stake specifically, which is bound to social contracts, to vote. As they where not voting anyhow obviously this doesn't change anything.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good. Justin Sun hoovers up I.T. and blockchain tech assets for the CCP. It's highly speculative to imagine any other outcome for STEEM blockchain than being disassembled and picked apart like a carcass for the fattening of one other.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
all this was communication shitshow. we will assimilate steem and swap your steem for whatever tron token. we have no intention to do that, for now. Steemit employes say no one in talks with them said anything about assimilation and swapping, then two hours later Justin on twitter again tweets about assimilation...
i would like to think that if Elon bought it and started talking about moving steem to another blockchain and swapping steem for some kind of SMT that they would do the same.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Of course they would not, they are racist witnesses! lol
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not in the top 20 and I may be suffering even more from having made this decision. My very first reaction was, like @exyle, "no way to freeze account assets!"
Then I have read the concern of everybody, agreeing or disagreeing, and would have it been a matter of position in the witness ranking, I would have NOT supported it.
The main goal has always been to avoid one single entity throwing out all top 30 witnesses to (brute) force the adoption of a non-Steem community agreed switch to TRON.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why not just reduce the number of witnesses one single account can vote for?
Five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be enough!
At least it would make it somewhat harder for one entity to control the whole blockchain. I know it would still be possible to use multiple accounts for witness voting, but in that case the stake had to be spread on different account which resulted in less voting power.
Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
While this is something I would like to see, it is a major change in governance that should be discussed (and it has already been at length) and will require a hard fork.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit