RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem by fredrikaa

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @meesterboom/q687ny

· @fredrikaa ·
$0.09
> What are the exact exit criteria of the fork?

Different witnesses may have different expectations. So far, there seem to be only two witnesses in the top 31 who _do not_ run the soft fork (timcliff and jesta). Of these, some may be content with Steemit and Tron giving more information such as a roadmap or vision, plus stating what they will be doing with the stake. Others may have a more drastic view and think that the stake should not have been Ned's to sell for profit to begin with, and should instead stay with the community.

So how would it be resolved if there are different views for what the criteria should be? It's quite simple. As we learn more, some witnesses may be comforted by what they see and choose to not run the soft fork, then eventually there'll be a majority who do not, and it will be reverted.

My criteria is first that we get a concrete and detailed answer by Steemit Inc and Justin Sun themself. If their answer is drastically different to the original promise Steemit Inc had, then I think it would be fair for the community and stakeholders who invested time and money into Steem on that basis to have the time and availability to leave before such changes are applied. If they promise to treat the stake the way they did before through not voting, then I would expect them to use the "decline voting rights" operation which removes those functions from an account. If they do go along with the opinion that some have that the stake they have is supposed to be used for community growth and further decentralization, then I would hope to see some action performed that make this "trustless" through either a donation to the steem.dao, or a foundation.

The important part is this: We need to know if the previous conditions for the stake still apply or not. And if not, what the new conditions are. And then be able to move on from there.

I agree that there is a risk here in terms of perception. I also think Tron and Justin Sun offers a unique opportunity for Steem to gain some much needed marketing talent and financial resources. So I am motivated, and can promise, that I will do what I can to pursue a positive outcome for Steem, and hope for a situation where the two projects can find mutual benefit and create a win-win for users and stakeholders on both sides. Therefore I will be spending a lot of time and effort the next few days in a diplomatic way to try and make that happen.
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id84,694,088
authorfredrikaa
permlinkq6899z
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-24 22:32:24
last_update2020-02-24 22:32:24
depth6
children9
net_rshares531,631,210,315
last_payout2020-03-02 22:32:24
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.044 SBD
curator_payout_value0.044 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length2,431
author_reputation127,187,503,965,069
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@meesterboom ·
$0.40
> Therefore I will be spending a lot of time and effort the next few days in a diplomatic way to try and make that happen.

That is very comforting to hear. I appreciate that.

I wish, reading your criteria above (third para) that they were defined as such by the community consensus statement because your criteria are concrete and do elicit confidence.

> As we learn more, some witnesses may be comforted by what they see and choose to not run the soft fork, then eventually there'll be a majority who do not, and it will be reverted.

They may, or they may be caught up in the group think and not wish to step out with the common thinking. You might be able to tell but I am not very fond of *may* in this circumstance. You could say that there *may* be a chance that strong personalities push their own distrust if Justin Sun onto others through the coming weeks. There may not be a sufficient answer and the softfork may remain in place forever. 

I guess we will see. Sorry for removing your witness vote after such a short time, I will, based on your splendid discourse here, re-instate it. 

Told you I was flighty ;O)
👍  , ,
properties (23)
post_id84,694,287
authormeesterboom
permlinkre-fredrikaa-q689v5
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"tags":["exyle"],"app":"steempeak\/2020.02.3"}
created2020-02-24 22:45:06
last_update2020-02-24 22:45:06
depth7
children2
net_rshares2,093,719,636,785
last_payout2020-03-02 22:45:06
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.198 SBD
curator_payout_value0.198 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,127
author_reputation823,295,147,248,484
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (3)
@fredrikaa ·
$2.11
I very much appreciate it! I also realize how providing clear criteria would make this appear more thought through and also make the whole situation more clear and not look as uncertain.

But the intention is for it to buy time for such conversations to take place without any fear of sudden irreversible actions being done.

In any case, I look more forward to getting to know what future plans Steemit Inc and Tron have come together to find. I am an optimist at heart and do think that we can turn all of this into strength going forward. I have never seen this many witnesses get active as has happened following the acquisition news. Nor have I seen as many users participate in witness voting and conversation on the fundamentals of what we want this blockchain to be. And that is promising to me of a community that cares deeply about thsi chain.

Yes, I understand that groupthink can be an issue. Which is why these conversations now with the rest of the userbase is so important.

I much appreciate that you put trust in me and my team. I'm here for the long-game with Steem and will do my best to see it succeed.
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id84,694,996
authorfredrikaa
permlinkq68bsd
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-24 23:26:39
last_update2020-02-24 23:26:39
depth8
children1
net_rshares8,807,569,081,714
last_payout2020-03-02 23:26:39
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value1.056 SBD
curator_payout_value1.056 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,123
author_reputation127,187,503,965,069
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@exyle ·
$0.04
Thanks for answering all the questions in the calm and respectful way that you have, man.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id84,701,570
authorexyle
permlinkq68v0n
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-25 06:22:00
last_update2020-02-25 06:22:00
depth9
children0
net_rshares232,730,774,704
last_payout2020-03-03 06:22:00
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.018 SBD
curator_payout_value0.018 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length89
author_reputation1,230,268,770,812,381
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@wattersblue · (edited)
$5.18
The precedent set by what they just did is going to be felt throughout the entire crypto industry by all DPOS and POS blockchains. There had to be a better way.

What exactly were these witnesses saving btw? Their seat at the table?

Even if Justin tried to move steem over to tron, everyone would have the option of remaining with steem classic if they so desired. This looks like more about preserving witness spots then actually protecting steem. All of the Top 20 Witnesses (that voted for this) should step down indefinitely to prove that this was best for steem and not just for them financially.
👍  , , ,
properties (23)
post_id84,694,384
authorwattersblue
permlinkq68a51
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-24 22:50:39
last_update2020-02-24 22:51:51
depth7
children5
net_rshares19,298,548,310,869
last_payout2020-03-02 22:50:39
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value2.592 SBD
curator_payout_value2.591 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length602
author_reputation-886,702,183,221
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (4)
@fredrikaa ·
$0.31
While it may have taken this soft fork to trigger the news and install the potential FUD that it may, unfortunately, bring. It still was possible the whole time and thus never _really_ changed in terms of dpos security and quality (although perception is of course important).

Also, the demonstrated negative effect that one entity of aligned witnesses can have also reinforces the argument for why it is so dangerous for one giant stakeholder to be able to vote in all the witnesses needed to have super majority...

My preference would be that following this, we reduce the total witness vote to 10. While it will still be theoretically possible for someone to spend a hundred million dollars (assuming they would make price go up) in order to get the stake needed to vote in 20 witnesses, it would take a lot more stake than it does right now.

That said, I can understand that in the face of such a vulnerability, witnesses find it responsible to "pause" the ability for that to happen until a workable solution or sufficient clarification/guarantee is in place.
👍  , ,
properties (23)
post_id84,694,676
authorfredrikaa
permlinkq68axv
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-24 23:08:21
last_update2020-02-24 23:08:21
depth8
children4
net_rshares1,703,007,250,392
last_payout2020-03-02 23:08:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.157 SBD
curator_payout_value0.157 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,067
author_reputation127,187,503,965,069
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (3)
@jaki01 ·
$0.04
> My preference would be that following this, we reduce the total witness vote to 10.

Exactly! I think five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be fine.

Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id84,738,752
authorjaki01
permlinkq6b0y9
categoryexyle
json_metadata{"users":["freedom"],"app":"steemit\/0.2"}
created2020-02-26 10:25:21
last_update2020-02-26 10:25:21
depth9
children3
net_rshares233,190,668,320
last_payout2020-03-04 10:25:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.019 SBD
curator_payout_value0.018 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length258
author_reputation307,452,322,299,597
root_title"Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)