However, there are potential risk that backup Witnesses are being pushed upwards towards the Top20 position, effectively rendering the Softfork useless.
Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.
I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?
What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.
As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast
You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.
The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.
Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.
Why Now?
Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.
We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.
I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..
We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.
Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.
This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.
The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?
That, I assume, would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.
You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.
His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.
How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.
His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.
Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.
A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.
Good post man. I respect your stance on this.
Thanks. I hope we all come up with an ideal solution.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.
I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?
What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.
As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast
Posted using Partiko iOS
Well done. I'm waiting to see what witnesses support this, and I'll remove my vote from them and transfer it to ones that don't.
Cg
You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.
The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.
Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.
Why Now?
Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.
We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.
I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..
We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.
Well said!
You and I think a lot alike. Great write up and analysis.
Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.
...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.
This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.
The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?
That, I assume, would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.
You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.
His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.
How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.
His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.
Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.
A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.
Hear hear
.
I support and agree with your decision. I wish there were more free market freedom loving users on Steem.