Who likes hard forking?
I have not had time to read all of the posts on this topic but I did briefly review those of thecryptodrive and @aggroed, consider both to have made some excellent points, and I generally agree with them (though not saying 100% on every single point necessary). I would also point to this thoughtful post by @steemed, who while not a top 20 witness, is a large stakehodler who has been around for the entire history of Steem and has a better understanding of it than most. While I prefer to pursue a restructuring to address the issues than an immediate fork, @steemed makes a compelling case for forking, please read it.
As others have done, I have committed previously off-chain and further do so here on-chain that I won't support any hard forks (as either as witness or stakeholder) as long as the power down is stopped and that Steemit and the community work together to address the serious problems that exist in the Steem ecosystem.
Since many witnesses and major stakeholders have made this commitment, there is no risk of a hard fork, if there ever was one (which IMO there was not). Steemit's stake was and is not a risk, and the power down has only negative effects, not positive ones. And furthermore Steemit can still use their stake to vote out all witnesses (as they have done before) if they really wanted to. They want to avoid this, fair enough, but the option is there. So, again, no risk of a hard fork.
I join my friend @thecryptodrive's petition in urging Ned and Steemit to stop the power down and consider instead working to address the failures and tensions that led to this situation in the first place, by creating a better ecosystem model for Steem and Steemit that solves matters of broad concern such as the existing development processes, and their success or lack thereof.
Rewards to be donated to @burnpost
Thank you @smooth for your thoughtful post, I am honoured to stand with you. Just had a "funny" thought that maybe Steemit used this opportunity to accelerate their timeline in powering down, using this as a misdirection and cause of validation.
@smooth's statement best reflect my position at this point.
I've signed the petition by @thecryptodrive.
I'll eventually make a statement of my own.
I'd also be happy with a smaller powerdown rate which would be agreed by the top 17/20 witnesses.
This maximum powerdown rate should be agreed by a certain % of top witnesses and preferably hardcoded.
I've resteemed.
It's not a funny thought and you are not the first to suggest this possibility. I don't know but I rule nothing out.
This wording seems ambiguous to me:
What is your stance on running a hard-fork that removes stakeholders' account access in the event that the power down is not stopped, or if (in your opinion) Steemit and the community don't "work together to address the serious problems that exist in the Steem ecosystem"?
BTW, I want to comment on this wording becuase it is important
The correct phrasing is "that removes stakeholders account access on that fork". One can not fully "remove" stakeholders access without rewriting the past chain, which no one has suggested whatsoever (even then, others might decide not to participate in the rewrite). One can only create a fork (think, as in, "fork in the road") going forward in which some, all, or none may participate. There is always a (potential, if anyone follows it) fork where the old rules continue to apply and any "removed ... access" has not been removed.
Please read the post by @aggroed. Forks are never a matter of "removing" or "theft", they are a mechanism on agreement of what sort of blockchain(s) in which you wish to participate going forward. Anyone pushing loaded terms like "theft" or "property rights" in a sort of global context without incorporating this "fork in the road" concept of how blockchains actually work either does not understand how they work or is using those loaded words to try to manipulate you.
Forking someone out of their legally acquired stake is nothing short of theft, and in the distributed ledger world it would be the equivalent of a Jonestown mass suicide on the part of those perpetrating the theft.
You witnesses need to get your shit together quick, let the loser go, and get on the stick. We need code upgrades that bring down the overhead making decentralization possible. Crying over spilt milk only makes things worse.
Get over it. You've got 3 months to put a replacement in place for Steemit's 2 million a year servers, and, if you don't, you've got nobody to blame on that one but yourselves!
There's numerous Steem forks already around, including the "official" Golos.
Golos is trading below $0.01 now and the whole project do have about $1 million market cap.
There's no way for them to be able to collect 2 million a year "for servers", and yet...
Good point!
You can not fork out something, only fork. The former is a misnomer that indicates either misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
When one creates a fork, it introduces two possible paths going forward for the blockchain. People can choose either, both, or neither of the paths to use going forward. If people take the path where certain premined stake is no longer recognized then that is their prerogative. If they choose not to, that their prerogative as well. Neither you nor I can dictate to others what to do.
You are looking at forks as being something like updating bank records in a database, where there is one single record and when an account is gone, it is really gone. That's not the case with blockchains. You can not make these kinds of destructive modifications without rewriting the past chain, which goes far beyond a mere fork (and even then, nothing prevents people who prefer it from continuing to use the original chain).
You are hiding behind semantics. If a majority decides to fork leaving any legitimate minority excluded, then the minority is screwed. The old chain is lost to history (except in a couple of very famous, high profile cases where the minority has spent millions trying to keep their "forks" alive). You know this all too well, so I will not condescend by implying you might not understand. What I will say, however, is that my impression is that you are indeed trying to mislead with your hiding behind Orwellian doublespeak. What is being contemplated is out-and-out theft, and the end result for those who were to carry it out would be STEEM suicide. Nobody in their right mind would want to be on either chain!
Edit: (before writing this I must warn that you could accuse me of being ignorant on this subject of GitHub ownership, please correct me if I'm wrong) There is another angle not mentioned as of yet, and that is GitHub access. In light of Steemit Inc.'s public declarations, I think the world would view a request by a select group of top witnesses (as determined by highest ownership and long term participation ratios, for example) for STEEM GitHub access/ownership as being very reasonable. I think the long and short of Steemit Inc. and Ned's public announcements is that they are basically opting out, and if they do nothing to assist other stakeholders to take over, I think the world would see that as a problem. Remember, any action taken must be justifiable to the world at large if survival is to have any chance at all. With GitHub access/control, the community could move forward, without it there is a major problem. If Ned were to refuse to hand over GitHub access to the community, then there would be justification for forking and leaving him out. The case would have to be clearly made, defended and continually disseminated, but it could be seen as acceptable justification for an exceptional one-off that would never happen again and that wouldn't be viewed as theft, IMO anyway.
You have no say over this, as much as you might like to. If people want to move to a different chain (including a chain which forked from a previous chain), with some differences in state but some commonalities, they can absolutely do so. There's nothing really to discuss here, regardless of what you or think. No mechanism is possible that can prevent it. If you think it is a bad idea, your only real option is to not use it.
In the case of proof-of-work chains, yes it is true that mining costs money. Whether this is any sort of deliberate "spending" of millions for a political agenda or just the usual case of miners chasing rewards is somewhat a matter of opinion but the latter certainly does happen (as when relative profitability of the chains shift and miners follow it). But in any case this does not apply to PoS chains which do not have mining cost. It is arguably a version of the famous nothing-at-stake problem that infinitely many forks can coexist with no added cost. The only thing that really determines which ones do is whether people find them attractive to use.
People have repeatedy made these sorts of claims about various hard forks and chain splits in cryptocurrency history and always been wrong. It turns out that it is almost impossible to come up with anything (even the most incredibly stupid ideas, in my opinion, or probably yours), which "nobody" would want. Perhaps this simply means there are a great many people not in their right minds, but again what you or I think does not matter.
This has been requested repeatedly by witnesses and has been both explicitly and implicitly (by failing to take actions toward it) rejected. Apart from actual handing over, there has been repeated resistance to even allowing: a) third parties to perform some of the development work, to help develop a less centralized process and competence; b) including non-Steemit developers in planning, design, and roadmap processes; c) accepting work from non-Steemit developers which disagrees with the Steemit-determined roadmap. This included threats of using the Steemit stake to vote out witnesses in favor of it. So there we are. Draw your own conclusions I guess.
You're right to clarify that. Thank you.
However, I would add that the main branch that matters to most stakeholders here is the one that is tied to the STEEM symbol on the exchanges. There is also a difference between a hardfork in the historical sense of the term on the Steem blockchain, and a hardfork of the BTC/BCH, ABC/BSV, ETH/ETC types that leave two viable chains behind.
When I think of hardfork in the Steem context, my default mental model is one in which only one branch survives. In that context, I think terms like "property rights" are appropriate. It could be argued that they're also valid in the other sense, too, because the split is merely a dilution of the original chain. That's not as clear, though.
How do you suppose it would go if IBM tried to say, we're doing a 2 for 1 stock split for every shareholder except the California Pension Fund?
There is no "main branch" predetermined, nor is it predetermined which chain will inherit the name, until after the fact, when it is observed which branch most or all of the users/economy/community deem worthy of support (this includes exchanges as "users" who have the ability to decide which chain(s) to support and which name(s) to use, and they occasionally don't agree on this). During the previous forks which you mentioned (which of course after the fact all turn out to be chain splits), there were discussions about what would happen if "unexpected" chain ended up being dominant. Even Vitalik, who was on record in favor of the ETH (as opposed to ETC) fork, stated that if the community did not support the fork, he would accept that and the chain with unmodified rules (the path which is now called Ethereum Classic) would continue as "Ethereum".
There is no difference that can be determined until after the fact. At least in the case of ETH/ETC, it was not widely expected to leave two chains behind and came as somewhat of a surprise when exchanges began listing ETC. In fact it started out much the same as an upgrade hardfork, but it didn't end up that way. The difference is determined by the emergent properties of voluntary individual (and the collectively community) choices.
The only one your mental model matters to you is you. You can not impose your mental model on others. They are free to make different decisions than you, whether that results in one chain or two. If significant groups of people have a different idea of which rules are best, there will be two chains. If not there will be one. Nothing other than individual choices and free associations determines this.
Appealing to centralized entities and securities instruments which are not based on voluntary association and are in fact legal claims on real world assets (of which decentralized blockchains and cryptocurrencies are neither) is at a minimum a seriously flawed analogy. The only question is one of degree in how flawed. Stock splits are not forks, and you can not fork a building. The CPF has a legal claim on its proportionate share of the IBM assets. A blockchain has no assets and a cryptocurrency holder has no such claim to make against the blockchain itself (a nonsensical concept) nor against someone else who wants to run different code.
Agreed. Which is why my previous paragraph stated that it is less clear in the case of two viable branches. But DPOS is also different from other blockchains in the regard that stakeholders other than miners/witnesses have an on-chain voice in which fork gets selected. (unless the fork were to reset that mechanism too...) Flawed though it is, I think it's a useful analogy to consider when casting one's witness votes.
The complexity that you accurately highlight in the rest of your reply is the reason that I'm scrutinizing the witness statements so carefully. Risk and uncertainty abound in the cryptocurrency space, but I'd prefer not to vote for witnesses who (in my own estimation) are prone to increase those aspects of the ecosystem.
Which reminds me... Thank you to you and other witnesses for posting these statements. I should have said that in my first reply. And thank you for your additional dialog, too.
I am always going to do what I believe is best the blockchain and community at the time (after careful examination of the details, and due consideration of input from others).
If there is ever a credible proposal for any fork (including as I have done for the 21 Steemit-proposed forks), I will evaluate it as it comes. The @johan troll fork was not that. I am well aware that if such a fully fleshed out proposed fork were to appear, there would certainly be different (and strongly held) points of view and interests to consider and I would hear them out before making a decision.
I won't pre-commit to anything without seeing the details and evaluating the situation in light of the above criteria. The offer which you quoted was and is a willingness to take certain options categorically off the table for a limited time under certain conditions, with the goal being to work toward an outcome that is better for the blockchain and community. If those conditions are not satisfied, then all options are on the table for careful consideration (which does not necessarily mean the situation will even arise or if it did that I would decide a certain way), and again see above for my decision-making criteria.
Great post.
This(Hard fork), is not the favorite selectable option,
But considerably possible one.
(and it could be a great threat to Ned just by hearing it)
Massive Premined Steem + Unstoppable Bidbots ..
Biggeset problems we are having on current Steem ecosystem, imo.
P.S - Recently @gtg and @jesta got removed their vote from Freedom a.k.a Pumpkin.
Do you still wonder who is the owner of @freedom ?
Have a nice day!
It seems to me that STINC should be buying Steem rather than selling, given that the prices are near all-time lows vs. BTC. Buy low and sell high, anyone?
Sell high and sell low.
Oh boy...
Nailed it
Sell high and SHORT low ;)
That's how the PROs do it..I hear..
Well now, there's an idea! That it's happening might be information of it's own. Also hey buddy, how are you?
What actual guarantees can witnesses make to indemnify @ned from liability in the event of some hostile act against Stinc's stake? I have read of assurances, but those won't protect him from criminal liability in court. They also are only as strong as the integrity of their authors. I don't say this to impugn any of you, but simply because of my experience in business.
No other party to any contract I was ever signatory to ever completely fulfilled their obligations. Given my experience, it's hard to conceive of a way for @ned to rationalize ending the powerdown without undertaking extraordinary liability in the event of hostile action against the principal of Stinc.
I know there are some soluble problems facing the community, and I am confident you and all the witnesses I am familiar with at all seek to solve them. I don't doubt for one second your and their commitment to making Steem the blockchain it can be, and enabling this community to benefit from it.
I can't speak for @ned, but I don't see stopping the powerdown as even possible.
Is it impossible to work to rectify the challenges facing Steem should the powerdown proceed? If so, I reckon this show's over. If the witnesses can't, or won't, seek to work with Stinc and @ned unless you gain some control over the corporate assets - which preventing the powerdown is - then either the blockchain is hopelessly broken and unfixable anyway, or some witnesses seem to have resorted to extortion via a threat of forking to compel @ned to comply.
I don't think what another account does with their stake is anybody else's business, and if the blockchain can't survive unless it is, the blockchain can't survive - because it isn't.
I hope you guys can resolve these matters. I don't think threats are gonna help do that. Please reconsider.
Thanks!
Have you considered that the power down could make forking more likely (and that it takes 13 weeks so a hostile fork which occurs within 13 weeks still results in losses), or that the act of powering down may damage the value of Steemit's largest asset, or could result in losses due to the asset being placed in a less secure state of rest (on hackable exchanges, etc.)?
There are many different perspectives on what Ned should do to best protect the financial interests of Steemit's shareholders. (No doubt the above is far from a comprehensive list.) It can not be reduced to: anything other than powering down is irresponsible.
I've seen no extortion or threat. Please take care not to make unsupported accusations.
I actually have considered those things. You are correct that Stinc is trapped, and consequences are inevitable. However, it is facile to state that there is no threat to Stinc assets, or to ignore that @ned has a fiduciary responsibility to secure those assets to the fullest extent possible.
To analogize the basic witness posts I have read, many of them state 'don't power down and I promise not to fork your stake away'. Compare it to 'Be faithful to me, and I will be faithful to you', or 'Don't shoot, and I won't shoot.'
All these statements contain the implicit threat that if the 'request' isn't acceded to, the stated action will ensue. It's extortion, albeit implied rather than directly stated. I am reminded of the 'upstanding local citizens' approaching businesses and offering to provide fire insurance at substantial cost to the business owners and saying 'It'd be a shame if this place burned down. We can make sure that doesn't happen.'
I appreciate more and more your frank and forthright comments, but I don't agree that this isn't extortion, or that @ned has any choice but to secure as best he can Stinc assets by powerdown.
Thank you for a substantive and non-hostile reply. It is not hard to imagine you being under great pressure to be more hostile, and I take note of your forthright and responsible execution of your duties.
I am in fact under no pressure to be hostile, though I absolutely reject your characterization of my statements as something other than what was stated.
"By faithful to me and I will be faithful to you" does NOT imply that if you are not faithful to me that I will not be faithful to you. I may choose other options, such as accepting the lack of faithfulness but being less about it, leaving the relationship, etc. Even the "Don't shoot and I won't shoot" case (which has now been emotionally loaded by invoking not only violence, but deadly violence), is in fact far off the mark because, among other reasons, it offers a commitment to not shoot first. We have another name for that, it is called civilized behavior.
Actual logic and precision in writing is a thing. Not everyone may engage in it, but I do.
Well, don't pick only low-hanging fruit. I admit I am not the best writer in the world, and that I am terribly short sleep atm.
Please address the actual issue, rather than my failure to well express it. 'If you do X, I won't do Z', is essentially the format that has been used, and it implies that failing to do X will trigger Z.
You aren't being hostile, and my assumptions of the nature of offchain discussions ongoing aside (as irrelevant), it remains a fact that this is an existential threat that @ned has legal fiduciary duty to address, and I can not see any course of action he might take to secure Stinc assets from forking except the powerdown.
So, let's agree I am a bad writer, and get back to addressing the actual issues please.
I entirely disagree with the implies part. It expresses a logical fallacy.
I don't think we can get any closer to the actual issue than that.
EDIT: I took a few minutes to look up precisely which fallacy. I believe it is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
While it may not be a logical proof, most folks understand when the mobster comes into the store and remarks what a shame it would be if it burned down, but that he'd be happy to ensure it doesn't for a modest fee, that he's making a threat.
@ned states he perceives this as a threat. If my wife told me that if I stayed home tonite she wouldn't sleep with the neighbor, I'd take that as a threat.
I appreciate your forthright and informative elucidation on the matter.
Thanks!
Edit: just for giggles I considered the post regarding the fallacy mentioned. In fact, it does not accurately reflect the matter under discussion. The statements in question take the format 'if X then not Z', and this is different than denying the antecedent. Not gonna nitpick, because what either of us think isn't really relevant, since you're committed to your statement, and @ned is to his course of powering down. Nothing I say will change either of those matters. The implied threat isn't a promise to undertake Z if not X, but leaving on the table a threat Z might happen if not X.
Sure. "What a shame it would be if we had to fork" is not a statement that has been made.
You're continuing to misquote and project.
Furthermore "forking" is not a criminal or violent act, as is arson. People are free to run whichever software they would like, creating a fork. Others are free to run the original (or some other different) software. If there are two significant groups who want to use different software, then you end up with two chains, like ETH/ETC, BTC/BCH, and countless others. That is not equivalent to arson (nor theft, piracy, hacking, nor any such other inflammatory and/or defamatory terms which have been used in an attempt to manipulate and exploit the less technically informed among us).
Secret Steem Committee Chat Dumps (rehosted):
https://mega.nz/#!lldHVKBJ!OCTGSltvSKvLMBTPdXbKFJMfMAVyhh6kHZ_SHnG0FsM
Proof of donation
14.742 SBD and 39.220 STEEM POWER for smooth/who-likes-hard-forking
https://steemd.com/tx/2d493604af76361226b2d45847ac31165d5ddc75
https://steemd.com/tx/19c4b91c85836a8bc701f3349e425002b72eb153
I don't understand, there's no risk of hardfork because many witnesses and major stakeholders made a commitment not to fork if the power down stops, in other words the risk of hardforking is basically guaranteed if they continue to power down and your and other's commitment don't change.
Posted using Partiko Android
Given my experiences in business, even contractual obligations are often unfulfilled. Actually acting to absent from hostile action Stinc's stake is the only viable option available to Stinc.
US law requires corporations to maximize the returns of investors. A CEO that did not undertake obvious and available means of protecting the assets of the corporation from being seized or diminished would be subject to criminal prosecution if such an event occurred.
I don't think @ned has a choice of whether or not to powerdown, legally, since the threat to seize the stake in a hostile takeover was made. Retractions, assertions of fidelity, even written contracts to indemnify Stinc, are insufficient to assure that such threats aren't carried out.
Edit: there's also another matter. If I told you that I would punch you in the dick if you didn't give me your money, would you say that the only way to guarantee I punched you in the dick was to not pay me?
Assholes can just punch you anyway. Extortion isn't polite, and savvy business routes around it.
This is the part I'm most confused about. People think if Ned doesn't stop powering down it leaves only one option , and that is to fork?
No there are three options in the event of a continued power down. 1. Fork. 2. Accept a future with a dominant stakeholder whose stake is hidden. 3. Sell your stake and exit.
Have a funny feeling that 2 will most likely happen. Then, followed by 3.
You could be psychic.
And number 4. Hf with a modest curve to dissuade stake splitting and make flagging more accessible and inviting and force all abusers of self voting, bidbots and circlejerking out of the system through one massive community account that flags everything into fucking oblivion starting with the largest abusers first.
This doesn't address the underlying problem which explains why none of this issues have been addressed in the 18 months since the introduction of linear rewards. The underlying problem is the inability and/or unwillingness of the dominant stakeholder to undertake effective development to address problems with the platform, or even to deliver on enhancements such as SMTs, while at the same time acting to keep all development in house, and obstructing and threatening anyone who tries to interfere.
None of that is changing here, in fact it is far worse due to the dominant stake becoming invisible.
Obviously linear was not smart. Especially combined with delegations, but it wouldn't matter what the dominant stakeholders won't do or will threaten to because the issue will still need to be resolved, and forcing a hf among the witnesses can and will happen and any attack will probably deliver a Streisand Effect that will make the break that much more likely. That obviously isn't preferable, but if stinc wishes to perish into infamy let them.
Posted using Partiko Android
Fantastic post friend congratulations @smooth @transisto
hello i m new here i need help.
I totally agree with you!