RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

geekgirl in #steem • 5 years ago (edited)

If this was really something bad, witnesses should have taken these measures long time ago. Inaction has legitimized the stakes long tine ago. Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything. Witnesses didn’t do anything then either. So justifying these measures with claims of “ninja-mine” are not reasonable. These stakes are fully paid for.

I expect a fight back to protect their investment. Hopefully mutually beneficial resolution will be reached.

I share the concerns of potential hostile take over, but I don’t think keeping funds hostage is a good way to achieve any fruitful results.

5 years ago in #steem by geekgirl

0.00 BPC

4 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

smooth 5 years ago

Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything

So now we are going to pick and choose which things Ned said we decide to decide are important and which are not? And we're going to do so by selectively quoting the ones that are most self-serving to Ned? I don't think so.

I agree action should have been taken long ago. I also see incremental reasons to take action now. The straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

lordbutterfly 5 years ago

"Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything."

I don't give a damn what the guilty party has to say. It makes 0 sense that you would.

Stinc stake was never legitimized, simply tolerated to a point.
If it was legitimized Ned wouldn't have hidden millions of steem in exchanges.
He knew he had to run.

Witness inaction at that time doesn't mean anything except that they were lazy and inert when they shouldn't have been so.

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

netuoso 5 years ago

Witness inaction at that time doesn't mean anything except that they were lazy and inert when they shouldn't have been so.

Personally, I foolishly wanted to believe that Ned had at least some interest in ensuring the success of Steem. He co-founded the thing after all. I think many people had a similar opinion.

When Ned showed that we were indeed fools for trusting him, and that our hope was useless, it was clear it was time to take action. I agree this should have been done long ago, but it was done today.

If it didn't happen today, the same thing would be said in the future about it should of having been done sooner or that witnesses were just lazy.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

geekgirl 5 years ago

There is no legally binding document or protocol-based evidence Inc stakes belong to the community. Some announcements of roadmaps or blogposts of a companies intentions don't mean anything. Companies, especially startups pivot all the time.

Most importantly I don't like witnesses acting as a central bank and taking measures that affect the funds, regardless whose they are. I hope this is just a negotiating tactic and produce some meaningful results without diminishing the confidence on the chain.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

freebornangel 5 years ago

Pivoting, once you have given your word, is called lying where i grew up.

No doubt ned was not reliable.
Anybody that can tolerate associating with that kind of energy is suspect, imo.
Doubly so when it pronounces the demise of three years of my work.

I don't much like this, either, but i would rather see js prosecute ned for fraud than to allow ned's lies to wreck the chain.
Which may be the intended outcome.
He's got his ball and has gone away.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

jaguar.force 5 years ago (edited)

Well, is thats your approach, there is no legally binding document that says that the witnesses cant do this soft fork either....
Wanna play hard ball? it goes both ways.

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

geekgirl 5 years ago

lol, expressing an opinion is playing “hard ball”?

My reservations are very simple, all funds should be safe and secure for the chain to be reliable.

I don’t have a strong position one way or the other. Just trying to make sense of things. As I read other comments I am learning more.

Feel free to play ball elsewhere. :)

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

jaguar.force 5 years ago (edited)

I wasn't referring to you lady, but to Justin Sun, we can either play the game in a moral and ethical dimension or a legalistic one.
What Im saying is that you are denoting any other agreements that are not legally binding documents as invalid and irrelevant, and if thats the case, then why should the witnesses follow anything but strictly legally binding contracts?
See my point now?

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

smooth 5 years ago

Checkmate.

0.00 BPC