I do not think so. Justin Sun do not own Steem Blockchain. We do.
If you do not understand this, please consider educating yourself
RE: Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
You can see it in two ways.
Because only a select few people were involved and no-one knew about it the argument can be made that it was behind closed doors.
But on the other hand, the witnesses that discussed it are selected by the community to do what they believe is the best for the blockchain and what they did could have only taken place like this.
With my post, I am just stating my opinion. It differs from yours, which can happen. We have also agreed on things in the past. In this case, I don't believe in freezing anyone's account without any real justification.
Maybe my feelings stem from Dutch politics where there is always a middle ground and people talk with each other no matter what. I am not used to/fan of striking first, talk later.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We can barely say: by community.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is the correct statement. Therefore, we are in agreement. Discussions happened thoughout the week in many public forums. Interested people, including myself, participated actively. Then top witnesses met and decided based on majority. This is the way governance in a blockchain should work and did work.
Personal disagreements are perfectly fine. You can be fan of something, I can be a fan of something else. Governance should not depend on what an individual is a fan or not a fan.
I feel this is a step in the right direction and our chosen representatives have balls, unlike many of the "oldtimers", including Ned himself.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i'm also not a fan of "x first, talk later". But weren't you shocked then also when Tron announced "token swap" in announcement, twitter, (paid for?) publications on Coindesk, FAQ blog on Poloniex about support for "upcoming token swap". That seems like a "Publish first, talk later"-move initiated and coordinated by Tron.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is probably the most misleading thing exyle said.
We didnt talk to him???
Literally the first thing he comes out with is that he will dismantle the chain.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The witnesses knew about it. Many witnesses, including yourself. That's not "no-one." Actually...these are the most important people and arguably the only people who needed to know about it, as the topic/risk had to do with blockchain security and continuity. And that's one of our only obligations as witnesses.
There is no option of talking first when the other party to the conversation is the one that represents the potential security risk to the blockchain and can act nearly instantaneously. While you try to talk and make your requests or suggestions, they can click a few buttons and make your views/opinions/requests completely irrelevant.
To completely ignore this fact is reckless and to continue repeating "talking first" as a viable option to deal with an existential security threat is absolutely mind-blowing. In no other world would this be a good option and it is certainly not one here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Justin Sun owns his stake of the Steem blockchain like you own your stake of the blockchain. I'm not saying he owns the whole blockchain.
But if witnesses could freeze a stake without talking to the owner, this would mean they own everybody's stake and the blockchain as a whole, and that there is no ownership for someone outside the witnesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I personally guarantee that your 36,603.806 STEEM won't be taken away :)
If we didn't do anything that could have been worth zero, at least now there is a possibility that it may be worth something.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not scared about my stake, why would anyone fork me out? But what would investors think about buying a currency that can be frozen?
You're talking about possibilities of going to 0 but I don't think that ownership should be taken away just because of your (or anyone's) fear.
And you can't guarantee anything about my stake, it's not like you're my banker. Your arguments are wrong on so many levels.
Anyway, I see where you're coming from.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually many potential investors have decided to not invest in STEEM exactly because there was this threat from day 1.
Bottom line is. He acquired a company and the tokens that cam along with that company shouldn't be in circulation in the first place.
They chain stopped and started again 2 if not 3 times until they mine all this stake which felt as a governance stake.
Justin is way more clever that Ned and that dormant stake...wouldn't stay dormant for much longer.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit