You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Value Is Always with the Community
I believe that conversation like this - tone, manner, and content - would help us move forward to make any kind of agreement.
In particular, I applaud that you declared that you won't support forking other's assets.
Albeit not very large, you have my witness vote now. And I would recommend you as a witness who may represent the community.
One question: what do you mean by your question to Justin? Are you asking him that what he may offer to reach a compromise?
It's clear what he needs to do: stop sybil attacking the network and shut down his sock puppets. Apologize to the community and witnesses for his actions and accusations. Come up with a reasonable plan for the Steemit stake where everyone benefits that acknowledges the original intent of that stake. That's all assuming he wants some value out of his investment. Otherwise he may find himself alone on a chain few care about anymore.
What you wrote is bascially what 22.2 witnesses' demand(or request), while not proposing anything what witnesses may offer or concede. It seems that you do not want to make a deal, and I assume that fork would be inevitable.
What do witnesses owe Justin? He bought something he didn't understand. He came here and attacked this chain.
We didn't show up to the TRON ecosystem and make demands of it.
What, if anything, should witnesses give Justin and why?
You already did the first step that stating you won't freeze accounts. I believe that 22.2 witnesses also apologize that they made a mistake by freezing someone's asset behind the curtain, instead of continuously saying that it was "reversable" and "preemptive".
I don't think the witnesses (myself included) have anything to apologize for. We acted quickly to try and protect the chain from the very fate it's under right now. The community token holders supported our actions and voted out witnesses who didn't. It was temporary, reversible, and preemptive. To say otherwise would not be accurate.
Yes, it was done quickly and "behind the scenes" as you say, though it did include many large stake holders, application developers, and witnesses who all believed immediate action was required.
I understand that we view the situation differently. "Temporary", "reversible", and "preemptive" are what the "performers" think, and I believe that who got affected or who did not participate may view it very differently.
As I clearly understand your logic, I do not think we need further discussion regarding this.
I appreciate your time and effort again.
Thanks. I wish I understood your logic clearly also. I seem to be missing something.
Thanks for trying to explain it to me though.
I think the fundamental difference is in past experience - while I started steemit 2 yrs ago(which is not a short time), I haven't had participated in the governance system so my view is basically what an outsider would think.
On the other hand, 22.2 witnesses and supporters tend to be the active members who participated in the steem governance, so insiders' view and maybe also emotionally attached.
That being said, at the same time I still do not understand/agree with some of what Justin does/says. I guess again, maybe due to the fundamental difference in past experience.