You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Great Steem-Tron Meltdown Explained
I disagree. The witnesses were open to talk with Justin. He only had to put his verbal commitments into something more concrete and the soft fork would of gone away. Instead, he used peoples Steem on exchanges to try a hostile takeover. I can't see how that's legal. He might of had a legal route option but surely that's gone now.
If the community didn't like the soft fork, we had the option to remove votes from the witnesses that implemented it. I was willing to wait and see how the discussions with Justin, the Steemit Inc employees and the witnesses went but now Justin has ruined the chance of that happening.
I actually agree with you, Justin should have retained the moral high ground and simply spoke to the witnesses.
The real question is; why if the code was there ready to be implemented, was it not done so when Ned was still in charge?
Cg
This question is asking us to speak on behalf of the witnesses. I'm not in a position to do that. However, since I started looking into it when all this happened, it seems clear that the ninja mined Steem has been a n issue and witnesses have been discussing an ethical way to deal with it but since Ned wasn't using it for governance it wasn't as pressing of an issue as it has become in the past couple of weeks. Obviously that was something of a mistake, but I don't think you're taking into account that our witnesses aren't paid representatives and some/many/most (?) are devs working on other projects for Steem. This really strikes me as a legit "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" scenario and now we've reached the bridge. Could it have been foreseen that it would be on fire when we got here? Maybe, but I’m not keen on lashing the team for giving Ned the benefit of the doubt even though in hindsight that was not the best move.
Sorry, I didn't see your reply. However since I asked that initial question, I've had it answered.
The code they implemented, is in fact the very same code that's used to freeze accounts that have been hacked, hence them calling it a 'softfork', which sounds a bit dishonest to me.
Hmm, the reason why I don't buy that is because Ned has been using that Steem for various things other than development, including enriching himself. This was not challenged because they feared Ned, all of those top 20 witnesses, were there because Ned wanted them to be.
The @freedom vote was what put them there, and the lack of it would remove them. Hence they towed the line. Now that Ned has sold his stake, they feel emboldened enough to seize them without prior recourse.
Cg
So who should we watch going forward?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question. How do you mean, watch for what in particular?
Anyway, I think both sides need to move on from this, I've laid out how I think this should begin in my latest article here: The Great Steem-Tron Debate - How To Move On - A Plea To Both Sides
Cg
Ok. I went over it and didn’t see anything so my question was essentially which witnesses do you feel are trustworthy and what direction do they want to take things? Are there witnesses you feel aren’t trustworthy outside of a difference in opinion of the direction you or the witnesses you support want to take the chain?
Also, just for fun. What's your opinion on fucking Ned and #fuckyouned.
Ah I see!
Well, for me one of the most trustworthy witnesses is @roelandp, he has done a hell of a lot for the Steem community, and it was my pleasure to meet him at Steemfest 3.
I also like @anyx, who was one of the first people to use his coding knowledge to protect the chain.
Also both of those people are calm heads, and that's what we need right now.
Cg
I’ll have to look into the witnesses you mentioned, although I have heard praise around rolandp already. I completely agree that calm heads are essential to moving forward. I find all of this really exciting and can hardly wait to see how it unfolds.
Never mind. If my question is still valid after I read your post I’ll rephrase it.