RE: Witness Update - Running my own softfork (22.3)

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Witness Update - Running my own softfork (22.3)

timcliff in #witness-category • 5 years ago

To me, it's just as bad to block two ops as it is to block twelve.

Fair enough, although to me the issue was never about blocking ops. Even our RC system blocks ops (which is not done through consensus either). My concern was over property rights, which my version of the hardfork does not violate.

And what's with the deploying changes and announcing it after the fact again?

I wasn't really doing it to try and be deceptive. I spent the evening testing the changes, and once they looked good I switched over to my patched node and posted. I didn't want to post about it until I was confident that I was ready to switch.

5 years ago in #witness-category by timcliff

0.00 BPC

Sort:

Trending

[-]

inertia 5 years ago

The RC-based system that blocks ops was published for review so that anyone with concerns about censorship could chime in and post about their concerns. It also gave people a chance to review the code to find any problems, which I'm sure wasn't the issue in this case since it was such a small change.

Imagine a situation where Steemit, Inc. worked on the RC system in secret, then release it with the expectation that everyone support it. The RC activation was rough enough, even with the opportunity to review. If it had been coded in secret, everyone would have pointed at that as being the reason for the rough rollout.

Anyway, like I said, testing is largely a moot point. I'll concede that a surprise update that does not freeze funds is a step in the right direction.

The problem I have with blocking ops is not the ops being blocked, as such. The RC system has a published and known criteria that applies to all accounts. It does not single out specific accounts. It only operates with criteria defined on-chain, albeit without consensus.

Therefore the general RC system is not in the same category and I don't see it as censorship.

0.00 BPC

4 votes

[-]

timcliff 5 years ago

All fair points. There is no perfect way through this situation. Something has to give, and in this particular situation the fact that Tron poses a real threat to the security of the blockchain combined with the fact that they already agreed not to use those operations made this an acceptable choice for me.

0.00 BPC

[-]

arcange 5 years ago (edited)

My concern was over property rights, which my version of the hardfork does not violate.

What then about freedom of speech right, if that is really applicable to this case, because then the blocking of witness vote operations prevents these accounts to voice their choice to support certain witnesses rather than others?

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

inertia 5 years ago

I just want to clarify that I don't consider this to be a freedom of speech issue. It's just a censorship issue. I know they are usually used interchangeably, but I think there's a certain nuance that is lost in the "freedom of speech" phrase.

We are free try to broadcast whatever and witnesses are free to censor whatever. Meaning, we can and they do. There's no external restriction, per se.

However, a witness that censors while also making a claims not to censor is a problem. Either the chain is used to determine what is allowed on the chain or it's not. <- That's what I was sold on.

From the perspective of what can be determined on-chain, I believe there should be no basis to restrict an individual account. If you run a witness and make that bad determination, you should be fired. The entire situation should take place in the free market. That's the full extent of it.

On the other hand, if there was a freedom of speech violation, that implies something else, at least to me. That implies that there was a jurisdiction where a court could somehow decide if a witness violated someone's rights. I do not expect that this will ever be a determination made by any court, nor should it.

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

timcliff 5 years ago

They have already agreed not to use those operations. I do not see an enforcement of an agreement that they made as censorship. If they had not agreed to it and I was blocking them, then it would be a different discussion.

0.00 BPC