RE: Steemit Inc Stake-Freezing Softfork Thoughts
If they wanted their way, they can do the clean fork themselves too.
Its far more complex then that. Its important who does the fork, who is it that keeps the original chain. Whos is it that keeps the exchanges. The devs.
They would have the support of the exchanges as well, being the side with more resources to boot.
Thats not how it would work. Exchanges wouldnt go with it if 1 stake holder forked the chain nothing would happen. If we on the other hand hard forked we would most likely lose in that case.
Thats why a soft fork is so brilliant.
I don't care so much about the governance by the community..
Its really pointless to argue if you dont care what the stake holders have to say. Our values differ.
If i wanted "corporate control" i would have stayed away from crypto.
Also youre dismissing the fact of what Steemit.inc said, what was agreed upon etc.
If this soft fork didnt happen Steem would probably be dead in a short amount of time. His intentions were openly hostile.
corperate control was just an example model, but hey bro lol steem and steemit was always controlled by a corporation called steemit inc Steemit always had a majority of SP, they just never really used it.
its never been "decentralized" nothing in crypto really is, its always been a situation of 30% stake owner who can outvote anyone on witnesses, i mean, ive seen the witness voting results, its a few BIG accounts like Freedom who used to vote for witness, remember? I mean, freedom chose who the witnesses were at one point.... Isnt there always one entity that makes the witness voting decisions at the end of the day?
How do you see this turning out? Do you think we will have Steem Classic emerge like Golos.id ?
Anyway, just because steemit inc doesnt vote for witness, doesn't mean they cant. Dont you think its good if @justinsunsteemit starts voting for witnesses and maybe allow verified steem accounts to VOTE for what HIS steemit inc accounts vote for?
Hopefuly steemit incs power has atrophied.... and maybe, we will get to a point where justin sun just never gets around to voting for witness and the keys for steem and steemit get lost in a bureaucracy , thatd be cool if they are hands off just from natural apathy.... but id rather them USE steem and SHOW people how steemit can be used to promote tron, or any coin. I want steemit to be seen more like coindesk/cointelegraphg and its what I want to start with @newsdac i just need Staking Scot and Nitrous for http://cryptowars.me or http://chatcrypto.org i want to use nitrous as just a site for NEWS like coindesk/cointelegraph and i REALLy see Tron as the first of many coins steemit posts will focus on.
ALSO, if steemit inc doesnt own majority share someone else will. We would all love to have a system where No one person can have over 10% lol but like EOS is showing, cartels arrise and the best way you solve this is to increase our governance and adopt Telos style system with Constitution, arbitration, steem foundation, all that.
I really want to actually have rules to prevent anyone entity from having more than a certain amount of steem, maybe 10% , maybe 4% and we can enlist a universal ID system that can emerge in the future to not PREVENt cheating completely but where we can get close enough to a fair situation..... im thinking of using a network of whitelists voted in, the opposite of the blacklists, and i really want to see steem develop its own universal ID systems
This simply isn't true. Exchanges are centralized and can decide on their own who to follow. It's likely in a clean split scenario they would allow both if both are reputable.
You're right, but it's not relevant to my points, which I wanted to focus on. Plenty of squabbling about who said what, so I didn't want to focus on that in this post. And as you mention, our values differ in the first place.
It depends who forks and how and what Justin would have in place at that time. The choices made by exchanges would effected by multiple factors.
I think Pfunk did a good breakdown on what was said and when.
Actually, it also depends on exchange partnerships. They may not even want to run two exchange nodes.... So there's that too