You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemchiller goes witness! Let's make Steem safe again ;)
If you're ok with censorship, I wonder what you're doing on social media blockchain.
If you're ok with censorship, I wonder what you're doing on social media blockchain.
We want to get money... He doesn't care on what engine this site is working on as long as he gets paid
The joke's on the@steemchiller then, because if you're "in this for the money" you're frighteningly naive.
Wow
ага,вау
"the hive" is already censoring accounts. Including @steemchiller.
So, not so much a "democracy" as much as it's more like a VOTE FOR THE RIGHT ACCOUNTS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
https://steemit.com/hive-171744/@logiczombie/q7tdnv#@logiczombie/q7tdnv
his account is not censored. It's there waiting for him should he choose to log in and use it. He didn't receive the airdrop which isn't an entitlement. There is however a process through which he can gain that airdrop and many have reached out to encourage him to use it.
Please explain what you mean. Isn't the entire value-theory of HIVE that it's a COPY of steem?
Imagine if NOBODY got an "airdrop"?? HOW many people do you think would move to HIVE?
BY EXCLUDING ACCOUNTS FROM AUTOMATIC "AIRDROP" BASED ON VOTING BEHAVIOR, YOU ARE SIGNALLING CAPRICIOUS AUTHORITARIANISM (FASCISM).
So, not so much a "democracy" as much as it's more like a VOTE FOR THE RIGHT ACCOUNTS OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
WHY WOULD ANYONE BEG TO BE PART OF A PROJECT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN SINGLED-OUT FOR EXCLUSION FROM?
I'D SAY "FUCK-YOU".
yep Hive is a 'copy' of the Steem code ... a copy that those who created it had the right to decide what stayed what changed.
In this case they chose to create a starting point that dropped stake to people who didn't vote on sock puppets based on a criteria which was coded in and decided by the code.
That was a somewhat arbitrary starting point for some. For others who get that those who create get to decide we understand the starting point is created by those who create.
They then decided rather than arbitrarily decree that would be the final word, they created a process through which the community could agree to have the airdrop go to those the community didn't see as a threat even though they had a lapse of judgement.
That's democracy in action when those who could choose to control, choose to put the decision in the hands of the collective.
With the behaviour of Justin Sun and his arbitrary, dictatorial censorship, many would have made the move without an airdrop. They would have powered down their accounts and bought HIVE because of it being what Steem should have been. Like they are doing now.
Many of those same people would not be powering down and would be staying here except for the dictatorship from Sun. The more I see what has stayed here, the more I am relieved I'm among those leaving.
Caprcious fascism is alive and well, it's known as Justin Sun... enjoy
I hope the HIVE flourishes.
They definitely have a lot of talented and well-intentioned people on-board.
I just kind of wish they'd stop pretending they're "a decentralized censorship-resistant platform".
And they still haven't taken any steps to prevent someone (or some small group of oligarchs) from accumulating a large HIVE stake and taking-over-the-place (exactly like the SUN fiasco).
they are certainly closer to decentralized and censorship resistant than Steem is currently.
As for a repeat of the Sun fiasco... unless the stakeholder is already sitting there waiting to strike... it would take someone accumulating a large HIVE stake now 30 days to be able to vote in their sock puppets. That was coded into the HF and is a start on changing the governance model. The next steps will come from the community consultations and further dicussions.
how on earth did you reach that conclusion?
hmm let's see .. Steem -- Justin Sun controls the top 20 and a huge ninjamined stake.. definitely centralized
Hive -- 20 people of varying opinions and ideas form the governance and no ninjamined stake -- considerably less centralized
not rocket science to figure out the difference
30 days seems like plenty of time for them to soft-fork (cheat) any investor they disapprove of out of their stake-value.
The funny thing is that I imagined the SUN was going to have his scheduled meeting with the top 50 witnesses and then simply buy-off the 17 he needed. I'm pretty sure that would have worked perfectly.
You are making the assumption first the top 20 would actually be foolhardy enough to agree to a softfork after the controversy of one that had fairly unique basis behind it. Secondly the community would not work to vote their butts out after having learned that focused voting can move witnesses up and down.
That's a lot of moving parts to make assumptions on
He had his scheduled meeting, I listened in on it. He had nothing concrete to offer other than vague promises that he thought the situation was going to be all fixed in a few days and then he went apeshit the next day claiming a github PR from someone not in the top 20 and had long been ignored was going to topple him. That greatly reduced his possiblities of buying off any let alone 17.
Kid #1 - I broke the rules because that other kid was going to use the rules against me.
Kid #2 - I only used the rules against that other kid because they BROKE THE RULES (even though it's my god-given-right to use the rules as I see fit as long as I don't BREAK THEM).
That's part of "the problem".
They should be focusing on establishing FEWER principled rules (AXIOMS).
Instead of piling on MORE ad hoc, opinion based rules.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. The consultations are more about how to adjust the Witness voting to mitigate a large stake being able to have the power to override the wider community.
Will it be got right ... probably not the first few times. Coming from a wider pool of knowledge there is a much better chance of refinement than just a small number of supposed experts who don't know what they don't know.
кого ты тут понаписал? вот делать тебе нечего конечно. Боже,его рили кто-то читает?
Interesting.
exacto
We want to get money and tske care of iur families but he doesn't care
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
great
he's in for the money