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

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.

5 years ago in #steem by geekgirl

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

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