Justin bought this stake, and if you want to counter it, buy more steem. Or, at least be consistent and include all ninjamined accounts.
To be clear, Justin's actions and FUD have made me greatly concerned about the future of Steem. But we all knew about the huge Steemit Inc stake and its potential for abuse. This is a stake-based platform, and in doing this, it will set a dangerous precedent in the future of the platform.
While everyone recognizes the fact that Justin made a purchase of a company and its holdings, with any merger/acquisition comes a process of due diligence. We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain and its excellent community first and foremost.
We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain
I would argue this soft fork goes against that. This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".
This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".
That's absolutely misleading. This isn't about an account having too much stake, but rather about the ninja mined stake from Steemit Inc., which was unfairly mined and is now threatening the governance of this system.
Nobody of these Witnesses would just censor an account, because of too much stake. That is absurd and misleading.
Because he's voted in all of the witnesses who made this decision. Isn't that obvious?
The conflict of interest here is ludicrous.
That has nothing to do with it. I would have at least expected for you to understand the difference between Steemit Inc and non Steemit Inc stakeholders.
Doesn't this look like the top witnesses just ensuring they will remain the top witnesses?
I could say he is, and we have no way of proving either way. That's beside the point though; if the problem is ninja-mined stake, selectively picking the biggest one absolutely shows that this is about the amount of stake.
To be clear, everyone here that did due diligence when investing knows about the ninjamine, and I'm not advocating removing any of the powers that comes along with that stake, just using it as a rhetorical device.
It's more than selectively picking the biggest one. They've selectively chosen to ignore the ninja-mined stake that is already doing what they're afraid of in favor of blocking one that isn't, while doing things that way accrues financial benefit to themselves.
Freedom is not Steemit Inc, regardless how much you might despise his activities. Also, nobody is just censoring an account based on speculations. All the accounts that were part of SF 0.22.2, are 100% Steemit Inc accounts.
To be fair, their argument is (as I understand it) the steemit inc stake has been bound by a contract with the community, so this is to enforce that contract.
Its not only about the ninjamine, its about conflicting information, its about clear and open lies, its about broken promises.
If Ned makes a statement that he will not use the ninjamine stake to influence the community consensus, essentially entering into a social contract with us over that stake, then when that stake is sold, that social contract is passed on to Justin.
Why hasn't this been enforced before the stake changed hands? Why is this only coming to fruition now that Justin has bought the stake?
If you could prove that freedom was/is part of Steemit then I would argue for it to be included. But as you say, you can't prove this, so I doubt many/any witnesses are going to take action on the basis of nothing but speculation.
Yes, exactly. We can speculate all we want, but no actions were taken on accounts that were not proven to be Steemit Inc. accounts. Simply having large stake is not the issue here.
It can't be proven either way, but from the way the ninjamine occurred, I would lean towards freedom at least being an insider. That's just an opinion without proof though, and I'm not advocating any stake, ninjamined or not, get curbed or removed. This breaks the DPoS.
Then why didn't the witnesses ban the stake BEFORE? If it was illegal and mined improperly, then why wasn't it dealt with many years ago? Why do you not ban the ninja mined stake from others too, ones that support your projects @therealwolf?
This stake is a piece of property that had specific terms of use on it. Take a look at the helpful roadmap link in the post. This mitigation is proposed, written and implemented by a group of people who believe in decentralization and the vision behind Steem building communities like nothing before it first and foremost.
So why didn't the fork happen when misterdelegation started delegating steem power, even though that stake was never to be using the reward pool?
Face it, there was no terms with this stake, there was only empty promises, which could have been handled in good faith by declining voting rights.
Because some people foolishly believed in Ned's good faith as a founder, bought into his continuous stream of empty promises, and others frankly were benefiting from the delegations and preferred to take the route of self-enrichment. That's a pattern that has played out over and over, but it doesn't mean that taking firm action to stop the misuse of the stake and general screwing over of the stakeholders and community at various different junctures wouldn't have been the right decision then, nor that it isn't now.
Now the same people who didn't have the foresight to enforce this "social contract" regarding steemit inc stake are making a seemingly emotional decision based on what might happen. I for one hold the people who have allowed the situation to get here more culpable than something that may happen because a questionable character bought @ned's bags.
This is a good question. I guess its because we all knew Ned and people normally like to believe that others are honest and are good. Declining voting rights is absolutely something that's a desirable outcome.
5 SHADE from sgt-dan!The elected witnesses made this decision together in the best interest of Steem, and if you want to counter it, remove your votes for those witnesses and take them out of the Top 20.
That view obviously has a very good point. And raises the question: is the motive for this action expediency motivated by fear? Does it violate basic principles of what the chain stands for in a "ends justifies the means" fallacy? Or it an example of the valid use of supermajority consensus to protect those very basic principles?
And this is the important question. Was this a blockchain protecting itself similar to a User Activated Soft Fork or something worse? Either way, the code is temporarily and can easily be changed.
It doesnt matter. The chain put itself over a disrupting and dangerous factor that threatened to dismantle the chain (be that only for PR purposes or not) on day 1...
I agree, Justin has shown to be less than trustworthy in similar situations. However, this goes against the principles of the platform, and will remove more integrity than this purports to retain.
What good are principles of a platform that no longer exists?
Not saying that those principles have actually been violated (I don’t believe they have), but if your principles guarantee your own death, maybe they aren’t very good?
I think this adds integrity.
Even if you disagree, if you compare TRON to Steem, TRON has 0 integrity as a chain being almost completely owned by Justin, Tron foundation and binance, and it doesnt matter. Take IOTA now, ETC months ago... even BTC years ago.