Vlog 459: A sad day for Steem

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

Freeze first, talk later. I would have preferred the other way around.

$5.23

8 votes

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

Yes it is a sad day, I agree. It should not have come to this. This should risk have been mitigated by code long time ago. Why wasn't it? It's a tough cookie to crack, but has always been on the table. But only recently gained critical mass. Just as @steem.dao is a special coded username in the blockchain, the Steemit Inc stake should have that coded in (IMHO).

Per your suggestion: if it was (more) talks first, freeze later: it could would have resulted in a hardfork once a huge powerdown would have started. Which then all exchanges in question need to have had addressed. This is a softfork which blocks certain operations from being executed by accounts owned by Steemit.inc. No funds are nullified.

That said for over a week numerous witnesses have tried to reach out to Steemit INC, talks with Steemit INC devs and we formulated pretty specific questions for the AMA. But the AMA was very disappointing: self-moderated, picking 3 lame questions on the spot and one vague answer: "for now". I feel that with the PR moves from Tron Network specifically there is an anology with your "Freeze first, talk later". What they did, and are still doing is pushing a narrative of an upcoming Token Swap of the STEEM Blockchain, thus: "Publish first, talk later".

Please understand this:

Nobody took it lightly to decide upon doing this.
This is not a precedent: My opinion is, if any single person buys a major stake now, wether OTC or via exchanges in STEEM, and starts voting with it then so be it: But the Steemit Inc stake is a special one as defined in "social contracts", code upgrades, video interviews.

Some articles which are good reads on the current situation:

$2.00

6 votes

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I do understand why the action was taken and the reasoning behind it (even though I completely don't agree with it).

If you ask anyone here if it's ok to freeze their account, they would run for that PD button indeed.

So you don't ask. You do it (with consensus but obviously without debate).

For me, that is a problem, I believe it has set a precedent and it will be a looming option over the chain for anyone that in the eyes of the current governance might have bad intentions to the chain (whatever that may be, and that is the slippery slope).

Unfreezing the account will be a whole new puzzle to solve now too.

I hope you can imagine that it hasn't been easy for me to have such an opposing view from others on this topic, especially after all these years.

Thanks, Roeland, for your reply.

$0.31

roundbeargames (70) · 5 years ago

the precedent is more like the biggest whale threatening the safety of the chain and the community reacting to it. you're nitpicking the investment side of it. for any future investors the lesson is keep your fingers off twitter if you dunno what you're doing. not a bad precedent if you ask me.

$0.00

doingdailies (58) · 5 years ago

governance ...

the simple fact that accounts CAN be frozen whatever the reason proves my point that this thing is about as centralized as any government, a few people decide and you are fucked, and that's that

the exact opposite of what BTC originally intended : DE-centralization ... no one is the boss, this stinks, another reason not to buy one cent of STEEM anymore

$0.00

vikisecrets (68) · 5 years ago

Agree, temporarily freezing pre-mined stake is actually a bold and protective move for the community and all who have honestly invested in Steem. Steemit's stake is similar to Steem DAO and should not take part in voting for example but only be used for maintaining, developing and marketing Steem. That was an unwritten agreement we had the last couple of years and should now be set in code, steem on :)

$0.00

meesterboom (78) · 5 years ago

Yup. Talk first. Them take action if need be.

It seems that communication and transparency is only cared about when 'we' demand it of others.

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

Communication was done first, Exyle was too busy to acknowledge this I guess. Doesn’t fit his narrative maybe 🤷‍♀️ Not sure.

7 votes

fredrikaa (70) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

meesterboom (78) · 5 years ago

What are the exact exit criteria of the fork?

I think that is quite important to nail down. There are no clear criteria for the cessation of the fork. In fact, If I were to be picky the wording of the statement implies that based on community feedback the fork can be adjusted.

That doesn't sound temporary to me.

If an action such as this is going to be taken then it should be communicated very clearly what needs to be done in order for the fork to be removed.

Unless the intention is for the fork to never be undone completely? If that is the case then it should not be ambiguous. It should not be open to interpretation.

Communication should be clear and concise and unambiguous.

I would challenge the idea that clarification was never received on the forced token swap, from what I saw it was. I am referring to the conversation with Andrarchy that Exyle himself had and posted about just recently. There was a lot cleared up there.

This asking ona daily basis. Who asked who? Via what channels? How was it escalated when no response was given? Was there any response?

Finally, the perception is what is key. The perception outwith this little fragile bubble we live in. We already have a poor reputation. This, in my opinion, does little to paint us in a better light.

I am glad that you approve of it being temporary. But how can it be if we do not know what I have outlined above?

$0.06

fredrikaa (70) · 5 years ago

What are the exact exit criteria of the fork?

Different witnesses may have different expectations. So far, there seem to be only two witnesses in the top 31 who do not run the soft fork (timcliff and jesta). Of these, some may be content with Steemit and Tron giving more information such as a roadmap or vision, plus stating what they will be doing with the stake. Others may have a more drastic view and think that the stake should not have been Ned's to sell for profit to begin with, and should instead stay with the community.

So how would it be resolved if there are different views for what the criteria should be? It's quite simple. As we learn more, some witnesses may be comforted by what they see and choose to not run the soft fork, then eventually there'll be a majority who do not, and it will be reverted.

My criteria is first that we get a concrete and detailed answer by Steemit Inc and Justin Sun themself. If their answer is drastically different to the original promise Steemit Inc had, then I think it would be fair for the community and stakeholders who invested time and money into Steem on that basis to have the time and availability to leave before such changes are applied. If they promise to treat the stake the way they did before through not voting, then I would expect them to use the "decline voting rights" operation which removes those functions from an account. If they do go along with the opinion that some have that the stake they have is supposed to be used for community growth and further decentralization, then I would hope to see some action performed that make this "trustless" through either a donation to the steem.dao, or a foundation.

The important part is this: We need to know if the previous conditions for the stake still apply or not. And if not, what the new conditions are. And then be able to move on from there.

I agree that there is a risk here in terms of perception. I also think Tron and Justin Sun offers a unique opportunity for Steem to gain some much needed marketing talent and financial resources. So I am motivated, and can promise, that I will do what I can to pursue a positive outcome for Steem, and hope for a situation where the two projects can find mutual benefit and create a win-win for users and stakeholders on both sides. Therefore I will be spending a lot of time and effort the next few days in a diplomatic way to try and make that happen.

$0.09

meesterboom (78) · 5 years ago

Therefore I will be spending a lot of time and effort the next few days in a diplomatic way to try and make that happen.

That is very comforting to hear. I appreciate that.

I wish, reading your criteria above (third para) that they were defined as such by the community consensus statement because your criteria are concrete and do elicit confidence.

As we learn more, some witnesses may be comforted by what they see and choose to not run the soft fork, then eventually there'll be a majority who do not, and it will be reverted.

They may, or they may be caught up in the group think and not wish to step out with the common thinking. You might be able to tell but I am not very fond of may in this circumstance. You could say that there may be a chance that strong personalities push their own distrust if Justin Sun onto others through the coming weeks. There may not be a sufficient answer and the softfork may remain in place forever.

I guess we will see. Sorry for removing your witness vote after such a short time, I will, based on your splendid discourse here, re-instate it.

Told you I was flighty ;O)

$0.40

3 votes

fredrikaa (70) · 5 years ago

I very much appreciate it! I also realize how providing clear criteria would make this appear more thought through and also make the whole situation more clear and not look as uncertain.

But the intention is for it to buy time for such conversations to take place without any fear of sudden irreversible actions being done.

In any case, I look more forward to getting to know what future plans Steemit Inc and Tron have come together to find. I am an optimist at heart and do think that we can turn all of this into strength going forward. I have never seen this many witnesses get active as has happened following the acquisition news. Nor have I seen as many users participate in witness voting and conversation on the fundamentals of what we want this blockchain to be. And that is promising to me of a community that cares deeply about thsi chain.

Yes, I understand that groupthink can be an issue. Which is why these conversations now with the rest of the userbase is so important.

I much appreciate that you put trust in me and my team. I'm here for the long-game with Steem and will do my best to see it succeed.

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

do you have an information that witnesses did not try to talk to tron foundation? Because they said that they did try and were not able to. If you have that info would be nice to share it.

Also do you think that Steemit ninja mined stake (that was promised to not be used for votes and influencing witnesses) should be used for votes and witness votes?

$0.00

freddio (61) · 5 years ago

absolut.

$0.00

hilarski (76) · 5 years ago

It sounds like a Bank. I did not get into crypto for this kind of crap.

$0.00

meesterboom (78) · 5 years ago

Yeah, it's exactly something a bank would do. For the good of all...

$0.00

good-karma (76) · 5 years ago

As I wrote in my statement, I struggled with this decision a lot. Few sleepless nights... Multiple people tried to communicate with Tron/Justin, but no respond and meanwhile their actions about token swap and voting his own validators on Tron, showed real threat to the Steem. I wouldn't want Steem to be spoiled by bad marketing and absorbed Steem name just because it helps Tron to market itself. You mentioned someone in witnesses said if powered down and sent to Binance, it would be different? I don't agree with that, powering down is same.
Many who invested time to build/invest made decision with good faith knowing that Steemit Inc. stake will only used for development of Steem, not abolishment of Steem. Content creators are investors as well, but there is slight difference.
Also, this is temporary until there is clear communication with Tron/Justin. Of course only time will show now, consequences of these actions. I respect your decision and would've chosen same if facts/actions were in favor. It wasn't easy, first time in my entire witness years, I really considered to take smooth's path but we sometimes have to make hard choices.

$2.00

3 votes

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I hold you in high regard and am glad that it's not only me that had sleepless nights over this.

I also thought of just walking away but I can't, and believe me, having an opposite viewpoint from all the people I have known for so long has not been easy for me either.

Now that the decision to temporarily freeze is taken it seems silly to oppose it, the idea can't be put back in the box. It will always be out there, that parts pains me.

It's good to see you in the decision making progress regardless. You are, in my opinion, one of the best witnesses Steem has.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, man. It means a lot.

$0.24

chireerocks (72) · 5 years ago

@exyle, Thank you so much for Speaking Your Mind and taking your absolute stand. Your points are really valid and no doubt in it. But in my opinion there were so many doubts and choice of words like, Token Swap, Bringing Steem to TRON and Steem Tron will be considered as real Steem on exchanges and words like Old Steem and New Steem. In my opinion all these words definitely raised many questions and AMA Session was reflected as a Joke. Definitely your points are valid but i have mixed feelings towards this decision, i am with this decision but after watching this video i am able to see the depth of it so now i am in the State Of Mixed Feelings.

As you said now we can just move forward. Let's see what is about to happen in near future. Stay blessed brother.

Posted using Partiko Android

$1.36

4 votes

glenalbrethsen (68) · 5 years ago

Hey, @exyle.

Up until last night when I came home and saw my blog feed blowing up with the statements of witnesses, I was considering the idea of a forked out stake as a position of last resort. Very last resort, after it was evident that everything else had failed and that the STEEM blockchain was in jeopardy of existing and thus the stakes of everyone along with it.

And even then, it would still set a precedent and have repercussions because not everyone would want to recognize to what length or extremes were taken to preserve the STEEM blockchain prior to the freezing out.

But then last night I come home and find out it's not the absolute last option, but seemingly the first, couched in a softfork that while potentially reversible, basically states, "your stake is no longer your stake if we say so."

I've read the posts of several witnesses who were for it. I either missed it in each one, or there was no attempt on their parts whatsoever to reach out to Sun for some kind of clarification on his intentions. Did they? Was one attempt made? Two? It seemed like they were expecting him to come to them is what I get from it all.

I also wonder if they know whether or not Sun has any other STEEM sitting out on exchanges somewhere that can be brought in. He's highly suspected of doing that with TRON. If such is the case, and it's big enough, all of this is for naught. And as you say, at this point, how do you trust one another—how does Sun not move to secure his investment and position, and how do the witnesses ever allow the stake to go back?

All over a "social contract" about what the 'ninja-mined" stake would be used for with a previous owner that no one seems to like? For all of what he could have done better and not done, as far as I know, Ned never used the known Steemit accounts to do anything with other than pay his employees.

I don't know. It seems like there are people here who feel like they own more than they actually do. Which includes the stake of a company that created the blockchain in the first place. Social contract or not, this softfork, and the way it was done, was not the answer. And especially not the first answer.

$1.06

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.35

glenalbrethsen (68) · 5 years ago

Hey, @arcange.

I did see pfunk's summary after I wrote my original comment. However, you just filled in details I wasn't aware of after reading at least six (maybe more) such summaries. So thank you for that.

I understand completely that at the very least, the STEEM community must now somehow negotiate with an unknown actor in Justin Sun—at worst, depending on whether it's the PR that's telling the true story, a bad actor that intends to subsume the blockchain into TRON itself.

That for me, wasn't the issue as far as the Witnesses are concerned.

The issue is, ten days of deaf ears is apparently enough to tie up accounts on the STEEM blockchain now if they are deemed to be adversarial to STEEM.

Ten days for accounts that existed for basically four years that all involved agree after the fact should have been dealt with previously. That even though the actor in that case, Ned Scott, was known and for the most part, considered untrustworthy. Even so, no such move was actually made, though it was, kind of sort of slipped unto the table last year.

I agree with exyle—for better, for worse, or some point in between, the door for freezing out accounts has been opened. Reversible or not, the precedent has been set.

As it is now, I've quickly reached the understanding that it really doesn't matter what I think at this point. It's done, and my disagreeing with it is moot.

I do have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind.

Do you know if anyone is now watching to see if Sun is powering up any other accounts? Is there any contingency for that scenario? What are the Witnesses prepared to do if he were to do such a thing, or actually responds in some fashion that is either considered insufficient again or acting in bad faith?

It would be nice to know how the Witnesses will respond from here on out. It would be nice that they communicate that to the community, like they wish Sun would communicate such things to them.

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

glenalbrethsen (68) · 5 years ago

Hey, @arcange.

I appreciate the thoughtful and substantial reply to my comment and questions. You're the first witness to do so on this post. I'm glad to hear that someone is watching to see the activity on the blockchain, particularly the powering up of large sums.

I'm also appreciative of your take on how the witness voting goes. For what our votes are actually worth, it is one of the very few ways we do have to show our displeasure with some action, stance or even inaction.

I'll need to head over to Curation Corner and see what's there. Didn't even know that one existed until you told me, so thanks for that information, too.

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

Exactly.

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I think you said it well. I have not much to add. I also don't feel entitled to the STEEM of the company that created the blockchain. I never have.

On a side note: I do believe efforts were made to contact Justin before taking this action as other witnesses have replied here and in other posts.

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago (edited)

Imagine some random person would come up to you and would try to harm you or your loved ones and you would have to defend yourself. And you would let your fists fly. Does that mean, afterwards, that you'll go around the city and punch people randomly?

Because that's the analogy I take from your position regarding: "Well, if Steemit Incs stake was frozen, it can happen to anybody".

I get how it might look that any stake is no at risk, but that is absurd and simply not true!

There is a clear line between freezing the Steemit Inc "ninja mined" stake, which was supposed to be used for Steem and is now threatening more than ever the integrity of Steem, and any other stake.

Here is a short story I made to explain what the difference is: https://steemit.com/steemit/@therealwolf/q67exs

$0.79

6 votes

travelwithus (73) · 5 years ago

I understand the fear, but the action was not right which you all witness did it. You show something that nobody own truly his coins, because this can be frozen anytime by the witness. If Facebook own the Stakes, than you true have a reason to be afraid and do it....to save the freedom of Steem(it)

You all wittness didn't ask us as community about your decision, you made it just in the underground. You Witness all are here for us, to work as the long arm of the community, but not as own small group who decide anything alone....

I am asking you honestly: What the witenss will think this is going further now after unfreeze the Stakes? What you all think, there all BEST FRIENDS now after that? The News Website allredy writing about that case, from today every investor ( nevermind how much he will invest), will be aware that his investment can be freeze at any moment. This is not any more "Your Key-your Coins", from today this slogan is history for Steemit Blockchain....

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

because this can be frozen anytime by the witness

This was always the case. Tell me... would the witness voters (stake holders) allow witnesses to start freezing investor stake left and right???

The answer is no. They would quickly stop being witnesses. This change clearly demonstrates the power of consensus and the ability of a community to act.

This was not a sad day. Quite the opposite.

$0.00

https://steemit.com/tron/@cryptogee/the-truth-about-tron

travelwithus (73) · 5 years ago

You answer the question yourself. The Witness didn't ask anyone for that move. Does the witness made puplic request from us comunnity? Not at all....
We all are free people and have the right to say what we think about it, if this decisssion was right or wrong.

You should read that:

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

The Witness didn't ask anyone for that move.

They did ask people.
There were hundreds of posts on the topic where you could determine overall agreement.
The community stakeholders gave witnesses votes because they trusted them to act for the good of the blockchain. If they did something stake holders didnt agree on they would be voted out and others would replace them and the fork would be reversed. The fact that their position is even stronger then before clearly shows where the stakeholders stand.

If you disagree vote for other witnesses. Thats what decentralization is about.

Read the cryptogee post. Commented already. He is dead wrong about everything.

$0.00

roundbeargames (70) · 5 years ago

i wanna be friendly here. i dunno what's more "dangerous". if what justin has been implying on twitter becomes true, nothing will be felt about steem because it'll be gone, "migrated" over to tron. so it's like justin was the one that's been telling steemians they'll be forked out?

as far as i can tell, the biggest stake holder talking about a transition to another chain and leaving out literally 100% of the details seem like a legitimate threat.

but acting vs saying is completely different so i do feel like fork could've waited. and justin did let stinc launch communities.
(maybe not stinc anymore cuz ned's stink is gone)

i was hoping both witnesses and justin would be reasonable and focus more on SMTs, but oh well..

only time will tell how much value steem will have in the market, but justin really needs to improve his communication skills.

사불급성 (駟不及舌). out of all people, he should know.

$0.36

7 votes

actnearn (69) · 5 years ago

This whole episode conveys that assets in dPOS blockchains are not safe either by the actions of a single large holder or buy few coordinated stakeholders. We need to think through how to avoid such eventuality, for whatever reasons, through code.

$0.33

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

Thanks for your opinion on this. I think if I was running a witness node, I would have followed your reasoning.

I think ultimately this decision by the witnesses came from a lack of communication from @justinsunsteemit which created irrational fear in the community. Some feared he would start voting for witnesses with the stake. So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20.

Everything would have been perfectly fine, had he been half as active here as on twitter following the acquisition's announce.

Of course as you said, the the first thing a logical person would do after getting access back to the funds, would be to power down in many anonymous accounts and start voting for witnesses who did not support this move. So there's probably going to be a very long discussions before anything changes, and meanwhile the stake is held hostage...

$0.18

9 votes

ats-david (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

"So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20."

I'm not in the top 20. GuiltyParties is not in the top 20. Netuoso is not in the top 20. Nextgen is not in the top 20. Neither is SteemPeak, Actifit, Abit, liondani, riverhead, bhuz, pfunk, arcange, jackmiller, c-squared, mahdiyari...

Neither is theycallmedan or johal or Transisto.

There were plenty of people engaged in discussions over the past 10 days and plenty of witnesses that were not in the top 20 who were very vocal and very much involved in the entire process. To paint this as a "protective move simply for the top 20" is just factually incorrect. You guys can repeat it all you want, but the truth says the exact opposite, as you can see by the number of people who began running the code last night. There are witnesses all the way down in the 80s now running this version.

In fact, a pretty large majority of witnesses are now running version 0.22.2, so it seems that continuing to paint this as only a top-20 undertaking or protective measure is just a flat-out and provable lie.

$0.23

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago

Yet 2/3+ of the top 20 at least, agreed and patched to 2.22. Else the funds wouldn't be frozen. Most of the sub-20 are influenced by the bigger ones with more stake.

$0.00

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

"So witnesses are doing that softfork 222 in order to protect their positions in the top 20."

for one, I am pretty sure no one did this to protect their position. As I outlined in my post, this was done having Steem at heart. All for Steem. Steemit Inc's stake as far as we can tell is not voting for witnesses, so that would not change. It is preventing the Steemit Inc stake specifically, which is bound to social contracts, to vote. As they where not voting anyhow obviously this doesn't change anything.

Or are you suggesting that Top20 (or better said all participating witnesses including even more beyond top20) were afraid of being removed (by using that big Steemit inc stake) because not in line with the "Tron Vision"?

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago

Yes, that's a nicer way to put it.

Overall, adding code to arbitrarily change permissions like this is completely against decentralization principles. It also destroys the trust in the STEEM currency. If a mafia of 20 nerds can freeze your funds so easily, why would you want to ever invest into or hold steem?

Today maybe the only victim is Justin Sun, but tomorrow it could be apps or other large investors whose funds are taken hostage in a similar fashion, who knows?

$0.00

aagabriel (58) · 5 years ago

Good. Justin Sun hoovers up I.T. and blockchain tech assets for the CCP. It's highly speculative to imagine any other outcome for STEEM blockchain than being disassembled and picked apart like a carcass for the fattening of one other.

$0.00

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

So SteemIt will be disassembled by communists ?!?! That sounds like cold war fear propaganda.

I really don't see think that Justin Sun having chinese nationality as an argument for freezing funds, sorry. Communists are allowed to buy companies, they are people too!

Now, what I'm wondering is: would witnesses have acted the same if it was Elon Musk who bought the stake?

$0.04

5 votes

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

all this was communication shitshow. we will assimilate steem and swap your steem for whatever tron token. we have no intention to do that, for now. Steemit employes say no one in talks with them said anything about assimilation and swapping, then two hours later Justin on twitter again tweets about assimilation...

i would like to think that if Elon bought it and started talking about moving steem to another blockchain and swapping steem for some kind of SMT that they would do the same.

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

Of course they would not, they are racist witnesses! lol

$0.00

4 votes

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago

I wasn't thinking only about that, but also the fact that with Elon Musk we would be able to put STEEM witness nodes in space and making sure everyone on the planet can receive new blocks

$0.07

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

jaki01 (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

The main goal has always been to avoid one single entity throwing out all top 30 witnesses ...

Why not just reduce the number of witnesses one single account can vote for?
Five to (at maximum) ten witness votes per account would be enough!
At least it would make it somewhat harder for one entity to control the whole blockchain. I know it would still be possible to use multiple accounts for witness voting, but in that case the stake had to be spread on different account which resulted in less voting power.

Already now the influence of - for example - @freedom on witness voting is far too big.

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.04

heimindanger (68) · 5 years ago

I think this is a very irrational fear. Also, protecting from this does not require freezing funds, just making a fork before eventual 'token swap' happens.

I don't think anyone wants STEEM, a normal shitcoin, to become the shitcoin of another shitcoin (TRX). It has 0 chance of happening imo.

$0.00

lfgiaa (69) · 4 years ago

I noticed your interest in developing this community and making it move forward, so I suggest you join this community of support for beginners and reinforce their posts in order to motivate them and I am sure that you are someone who will do this. Greetings and all respect and appreciation towards the forward Welcome to You Deserve https://steemit.com/trending/hive-183209

$0.12

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

Were there any violations of the Whitepaper by enacting this Soft Fork? If yes, then you have the right to cry. If No, don't hate the players aka "Witnesses" hate the Game aka "Blockchain and the code". The Whitepaper is King and by participating on the STEEM Blockchain you agree to the terms of the Whitepaper. Please point to a specific violation, not your hurt feelings. Facts matter.

https://steemit.com/steem/@lasseehlers/i-don-t-like-justin-sun-s-acquisition-of-steemit-inc-fork-his-stake-out-steemcash

lasseehlers (69) · 5 years ago (edited)

Actually they did what I recommended. Even I am not a witness.

Feel free to be on the old chain with Justin "FUD" Sun.... in the meanwhile we the real people will build the real STEEM.

Your voice sound like you are on 2x speed.... you sound so stressed out... are you in the pockets of Justin?? Sounds like it!! So sad!

We can agree to disagree!!

Also Justin "motherfucker fud" Sun said he would make a token swap, then he change the statement later.... so he asked for it!

No other accounts will get nullified... you are just a Justin sucker ... Sucking at the power tit!

Bye.

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

Hi Lasse. This is not the case that has happened.

This is a softfork, not a hardfork: a big difference is that all versions of the 0.22.x Steem software continue to operate, including those of exchanges.
No stake has been "forked out". Certain accounts, owned by Steemit Inc are currently blocked from executing certain operations on the chain.

$0.00

lasseehlers (69) · 5 years ago (edited)

I understand, in effect isnt it close to the same?

Justin can't powerdown, powerup, vote, not even move the steem in the steemit inc accounts?

In effect those accounts are frozen... even they still exists.

$0.00

michelmake (58) · 5 years ago

Hey @exyle, interesting review you dropped here. Thanks a lot! I'm curious what you think of the following:

Sun buying Steemit or the soft fork, it doesn't matter. Either way shows that the design of Steem is not trustless. I'm no expert, and I never really realized it, but to me, this looks like a flaw that should be fixed.

Right now we either have to "trust" Sun, the witnesses, or whoever has enough power. And that is kinda scary.

Am I missing something here?

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

You get it.

$0.22

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

the only other thing you are missing is that Steemit was corrupt from the very beginning

$0.00

stuffbyspencer (61) · 5 years ago

This is such a bad take, imo.

I wrote about this more in my post, but a few key summaries:

We didn't do this to a "normal" user who happened to buy large amounts of STEEM. We did this to a company, who should have never held so much controlling stake in the first place. It's ninja mined, which means that for the rest of those tokens lifetime they are not "normal" tokens. If Justin bought 75 million STEEM without going through SteemIt, then that would be fine because we'd still have a powerful stakeholder to counteract the control.
Justin owns Tron and has beyond confusing messages about what the future is going to be. To act as though this is just any old dude walking in here and us freaking out, is not just wrong but maliciously so.
"I don't care if it's temporary", then I'm sorry to say but you're clearly missing the entire point of this softfork. We're not stopping someone from accessing the tokens they just purchased, we are using the rules that have been presented to us from the beginning to buy us a bit more time to think about our next steps.
In a dPoS system, what just happened is not only allowed, but is doable for this very reason. The community should be allowed to protect itself. How do you not agree with this?

To wrap up: This is a very disappointing response. Perhaps you weren't aware of the amount of confusion surrounding the acquisition. Perhaps you truly think that your random interview with an employee of SteemIt would solve the worries. Perhaps you don't understand the economics & potential downsides that occur if Steem is merged into Tron. Perhaps you weren't in attendance of the multi-hour long and multiple sessions of open forums that witnesses held on Discord, where literally hundreds of people tuned in & voiced their opinion.

I don't know how someone could arrive at a take as poor as the one your trying to get off in this video, but it's pretty disappointing coming from a witness who I thought was a good one in the past.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

also this was published yesterday (24.02) by Tron Fondation as a weekly update. Check out number 1 and 5. do you think someone in Tron Fondation should be fired for not reading the memo for 10 days, or justin was not that honest at AMA?
tron staitment full.jpg

$0.00

stevoperon (25) · 5 years ago

Yes, the most sad moment in STEEM history.

$0.00

cwow2 (65) · 5 years ago

@stevoperon stop voting for Sun witnesses!

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Another little dick dude, eh?

$0.00

cryptoandcoffee (74) · 5 years ago

I hear you but my understanding is it is a soft fork and is only temporary. This can be undone and put right after the discussions surely. My feeling was it was to get Justin's attention and nothing else so it can be sorted out in a proper way.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I would have liked to have seen more communications and talks between Witnesses, Steemit Inc. and the TRON foundation first. Especially because they are meeting this week.

$0.00

cryptoandcoffee (74) · 5 years ago

I think most of us were unaware of that information as well. If that is the case then I am with you saying it is wrong.

$0.00

pfunk (72) · 5 years ago

The meeting this week was between Steemit Inc.'s employees and TRON. I don't recall ever reading it would have anything to do with witnesses.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

You are correct. It's between Steemit Inc and TRON.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

And maybe you are friend with some of them, and maybe they told you something but that talk is between employer and employees that have contracts. I am sure that some of them knew something is going on, and said nothing, and i expect them not to. But that also means that Tron fondation speaking with them means nothing to steem community from information standpoint, because there may be a lot of things that they can't share.

$0.00

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

lol, We all would have liked some communication from Steemit Inc over this past year, but Eli made 2 posts in the past year hahahaha. They set the precedent of no communication and forced our hand to Soft Fork. And unless there's a Smart Contract with Justins STEEM tied to it, there's no way to trust him.

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

Yeah right, it can't be undone! Justin would vote them out in a heartbeat now or power down to get out and move to vote them out in a heartbeat! Not sure but it's a stalemate now I think! lol

$0.00

4 votes

brianoflondon (71) · 5 years ago

I feel your pain.

I sit in the middle because I do think there could have been a more concerted effort at negotiation direct with Justin Sun to come to some kind of signed agreement before going ahead and encoding this in the chain itself. A voluntary agreement along the lines of the White Paper promises and notarised with public statements on the block chain would have gone a long way. Who knows, he might even have agreed to the conditions in this fork if asked nicely.

I think the underlying contention in @agroed's post was that Ned's stake wasn't truly his to sell unencumbered. That's between Ned and Jason at this point.

But I've also been involved in enough business deals that didn't turn out as all sides expected, and ended up in expensive litigation to know that sometimes you are correct to be a little paranoid. Andy Grove (CEO of Intel) entitled his autobiography "Only the Paranoid Survive". Sometimes that maxim is true.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

from what i heard, they did try to contact Justin (tron foundation) but there were no answers. i got that from the chat on discord, so no idea how did they try, who tried it... If it is true that they were all ignored, it does not look nice.

$0.00

brianoflondon (71) · 5 years ago

It's also obvious that he was very busy these last few days doing the Zion vote thing on Tron which is obviously a bit of a scarily close analogy to the situation here on the Steem chain.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

that is what i say to people when i don't have the willpower to talk to them. i was really busy, my phone was not with me, notifications on this messinger are shit, pigeon that you sent never arrived

$0.00

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

I agree with you, the mistake they made was to not involve Justin in the discussion. They just can't fork off a stake without talking to the owner, unless they are ready to split the chain into two coins.

But from what they say, the whole point is to avoid a split. So, kinda stupid.

$0.00

adetorrent (74) · 5 years ago

I haven't decided fully where I am with all this, but I just want to commend you for standing for what you believe @exyle. You've put your point out clearly and I can totally see where you're coming from.

You're a man of principles. Thank you.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

Thank you man, that is very nice of you to say.

$0.00

scorer (58) · 5 years ago

It is a good lesson for all of us. Those little nuances differentiate real thing from a shitcoin. STEEM is now officially a shitcoin and witnesses approved it.

However, STEEM can still moon as a shitcoin. 🚀😂 But it will never become a real decentralized blockchain. 🥺

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

it is how it always worked. you don't agree with it, you can change people you vote for, and if there is enough witnesses that are against it, it will not work.

$0.00

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

So is my STEEM worth more now due to the reduction of circulating supply?

Did these witnesses do this because Sun is Chinese?

Will they unfreeze it after Sun plays nice?

Now I know how ETC guys felt after The DAO Hack.

Posted via Steemleo

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Did these witnesses do this because Sun is Chinese?

Excuse me? First of all, those 60+ people involved weren't only witnesses but most importantly, we're not racist. Seriously, what the fuck?

$0.04

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

Sorry, bro, but some of you said you "quarantined" his stake. Words, man, words. Be careful with them.

Also, why do this to Justin when you could have done this to Ned for years, but didn't? Is it not obvious that Justin is a way better leader than Ned for Steemit? Actions, man, actions. Be careful with them.

katteasis (63) · 5 years ago (edited)

you spoke some of my words man.I am not a Chinese but lately I'm also reading that racism kinds of posts and comments and it really feels bad. People here are not how they pretend to be..

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

hate for chinese people is the main force for this

*(hope you get the sound of my vice)

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

sarcasm?

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

we all hate chinese people, especially now when they created this deadly virus :D

i know there are some people in the world that have some crazy views on people that look different than them, but it feels crazy that someone would think that he being chinese had anything to do with what was done.

$0.00

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

Looks bad, bro. Ned was a negative force for years and they didn't do this to him. Now Justin Sun comes along and in 2 weeks they freeze his stake? Seriously, yo, how do you NOT conclude that race / fear of the unfamiliar could have played a part in this?

$0.00

blocktrades (74) · 5 years ago

How new here are you? There was, in fact, a discussion to freeze the stake not that long ago, when Ned was in charge. But even if you weren't around then, if you attended the AMA, surely you read the comments that were being thrown around about Ned. Did they sound friendly to you?

And no, it wasn't fear of the unfamiliar, either. There was and is plenty of evidence that Justin planned a token swap. Given that you weren't apparently aware of the threatened fork under Ned, you should consider that there could be lots of things you're not aware of that led to this decision before you assume it was rascism and fear of the unfamiliar...Most of which are actually discussed in the trending post on this topic.

$0.14

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

Look here, I never said it was racism. I just posited a question that maybe that had something to do with that. And given the responses here, I appear to have struck a nerve.

Your whole story proves my point. If it was threatened to Ned for months or years, why wasn't this tactic also tried with Justin?

Racism or not, Exyle is right. This is not very "blockchain" of any of the witnesses.

$0.00

blocktrades (74) · 5 years ago

Yes, the nerve you struck is that people who are not racists do not like being false accused of it under the flimsiest of evidence. Just to be clear, you don't actually have to use the word "racism" to accuse someone of being a racist.

My story doesn't prove the point. You need to do more research before making such sweeping claims. It was the reaction of ned (an immediate powerdown) that led to a quicker reaction this time, to avoid the same thing happening again.

And, no, Exyle is entirely wrong on this point. DPOS-based blockchains were designed to work exactly this way as far as governance is concerned. I should know, I was one of maybe three people involved in its conceptual design.

DPOS governance encompasses the notion that witnesses can fork the chain. Users of the chain who don't like a fork have at least two options they can take in this case: 1) unvote the forking witnesses or 2) setup a separate fork (this latter option is available with any blockchain). The first is one extra advantage of DPOS-based blockchains.

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

Supply is not reduced, Justin can't vote but he can sell the stake.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

He can't power down his stake.

$0.00

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

I didn't understand this from the other posts. This is mindblowing.

I now go from against it to completely against it.

$0.00

shanghaipreneur (70) · 5 years ago

Yeah, it's not a good look.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

They will have to come to agreement to unfreeze. That will be interesting to see.

$0.00

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

Very interesting indeed. And then what? When he starts power down, will they freeze the funds again?

$0.00

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

obviously this is not done because of racial backgrounds.
the circulating supply has not been altered.
whether the stake will be unfrozen depends on future talks and consensus. Let's see. If the witnesses were all paranoid and (for example) Tron is fine with having the stake (for example) be transferred to steem.dao for community projects, then all is good and decentralization wins the day!
this was not a hack. The code is submitted on an open-source public github account, run on several testnets with biggest participation rate of individuals on testnets seen since beginning of Steem development and then finally released and updated by a supermajority of witnesses, as can be seen in the utmost right column on https://steemd.com/witnesses

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

where would the price go if someone tries to buy 20mil of steem.

shitty thing to do, but he did talk of moving it to tron, and steem assimilation. even when you did that interviu few hours after that there was official tweet with swap talking.

You said there was no talks. but from what i heard around 60 people worked on this, and that there were attempts to contact Justin or someone from his team.

$0.00

chekohler (70) · 5 years ago

That's what I'm thinking you can't get all witnesses riled up like this without a series of things that trigger them. Sure there's some that wanted him out from the start but there were for Justins and centrists but this transition comms were handled so poorly I don't sort of blame the reaction

As someone who makes a purchase of this kind should know they need to extend an olive branch but their were actions that stirred the hornet's nest. I'm not saying freezing accounts is right I don't but we have to look at the series of factors that pushed the supermajority in this direction

I just hope this Mexican standoff brings the right people into the same room and gets them clearing this shit out because us that aren't into the politics could be collateral damage

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

witnesses fucked up long time ago as the ninja mined steem (especially that steem that was in steemit-ned accounts) should have been dealt with. best solution i that case would probably be that it is only possible to sell it on the open market. no votes, no witnesses...
Exyle sais he had some inside info that nothing of that was planed, but should that be an inside info? Or should be public and with a contract? There was even a massage from a exchange (if i am not mistaken) that said swap your steem as soon as possible as you will not be able later. Exchanges thing do not do that on its own, they need some info to do that.

And as he said that everyone is happy and now we don't thing justin is lying, well not really true, but finally there will be opportunity for people to talk.

$0.00

bozz (70) · 5 years ago

Sorry, I didn't catch it, but was it just you personally that was against it or did Block Brothers vote against it as well? Is there a list somewhere to see how each of the top witnesses voted?

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

We (@blockbrothers) voted against it by not running the soft fork.

$0.00

azircon (69) · 5 years ago (edited)

@exyle I am in favor of the soft fork.

I disagree that it happened behind closed door.

Please do not spread FUD. I have a lot more stake than you and I am not afraid that my account will ever be frozen.

The soft-fork is a safety measure against centralization and completely reversible. If this does not work for you, its fine. It is alright to have disagreement.

If Justin Sun bought the stake in open market, then this wouldn't have happened.

Yes, I can say that it will not happen to anyone else, especially you :)

$0.14

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

How can you say it didn't happen behind closed doors? Justin, the owner of the stake, was not involved. He's the first person to involve in this discussion.

$0.07

azircon (69) · 5 years ago

I do not think so. Justin Sun do not own Steem Blockchain. We do.

If you do not understand this, please consider educating yourself

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

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.

$0.25

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

We can barely say: by community.

$0.00

azircon (69) · 5 years ago (edited)

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.

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.

$0.00

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

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.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

"x first, talk later".

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.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 5 years ago

"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."

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.

"I am not used to/fan of striking first, talk later."

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.

$0.00

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

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.

$0.00

azircon (69) · 5 years ago

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.

$0.00

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

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.

$0.00

Show 1 more reply

bozz (70) · 5 years ago

Okay, thanks for the info. I think I have my vote proxied to Block Brothers. Are they going to stop voting for the other witnesses who were for it? It seems like that should be the next step if you don't agree, you change your vote right? For DPOS to keep working the way it is supposed to anyway...

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

thik timcliff did not run the softfork either

$0.24

bozz (70) · 5 years ago

Thanks for the info.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago (edited)

No, even though it might sound strange we don't make rash decisions like that. We carefully evaluate who we vote for and make this known publicly every month or two.

Even though we don't agree with this particular decision we do look at the bigger picture and take everything a witness does into consideration.

Also, we are bound by the trust proxy voters have given us so we don't just upvote and unvote witnesses on a whim.

By publicly stating that we don't agree with this fork. We are giving our voters a choice. If anything, at least we are very clear how we feel about these recent actions.

$0.00

bozz (70) · 5 years ago

Well said and explained. Thanks for clarifying that!

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

Meaning he vote swaps

$0.00

roelandp (74) · 5 years ago

you can see on for example https://steemd.com/witnesses (most right column) which witness runs which software. If it says 22.2 it is the Softfork222 update. So for example you can vote on witnesses who run another version.

$0.00

michelmake (58) · 5 years ago

Is there an easy way to see which witnesses are running this fork?

$0.00

summertooth (72) · 5 years ago

You can see it on steemworld here @michelmake
https://steemworld.org/@michelmake

Scroll down and you will see this on the left, click "witness overview"

You can see in the list which version the witnesses are running. Version 0.22.2 is the new softfork :(

$0.00

michelmake (58) · 5 years ago

Thanks! I check steemworld daily. Just never noticed that functionality :p

$0.00

haikubot (54) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

joeylim (61) · 5 years ago

@exyle I totally get the point on the slippery slope.

It's a little scary actually, considering all the wonderful potential the Steem blockchain has.

But then again, I think it is the fear of the wonderful potential going up in smoke that prompted the Soft Fork. Because fear leads us to go on the defensive, do things pre-emptively for self-preservation.

I do hope this issue gets sorted out - and that fear wouldn't reverberate deep into our consciousness. <3

$0.00

cwow2 (65) · 5 years ago

Wait. So if Ned Scott powered down and sold everything to Justin Sun on Biance, that would have been okay? XD

$0.00

https://steemit.com/steem/@softfork222/soft-fork-222

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

That's what Exyle said in the video. But I can't imagine a supermajority of witnesses being OK with that. The whole point is that the Steemit Inc ninja-mined stake is a special case, as up to this point it has been clearly declared on many occasions as earmarked solely for the development of the Steem ecosystem, and to be non-voting in governance issues.

So no, selling it on Binance would not be OK according to a supermajority of witnesses. Check it for yourself:

$0.00

cwow2 (65) · 5 years ago

So no matter who bought the steemit inc and/or their stake would be fucked? Good to know x)

$0.00

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

Well, ehm, depends on how you look at it. Personally, if I had enough money to buy the Steemit Inc stake, I would do my own research before sending the money. I would then already know that the stake I was buying was promised to be exclusively used for the development of the Steem eco-system. Since the softfork now only codifies that, I would not be fucked.

I would think Justin did his research and used this knowlegde to negotiate a fair price with Ned. In that case, he should have expected there was a good chance this would happen, since after all this is a DPOS consensus based blockchain and this is how things work here.

$0.00

cwow2 (65) · 5 years ago

I can see how its just codifies it now, that makes sense to me. But as @exyle, its done and thats a slippy slobe :)
And done his research ye well, I have been here over a year and the first time I knew anything about the Ninja-mined because of the buy. I had no idea before.

$0.00

chekohler (70) · 5 years ago

I don't believe in freezing anyones account I think that does more harm than good for potential investors I just think its a cock up on several levels. Justin knew this was not going to be a buy and port project since its a chain thats been running for some time now and he has more than enough funds, expertise and advisors to be able to put out clear statements

Then the whole Zion account voting in super reps on Tron news surely that's going to kick off peoples nerves

As for the freezing, yes it's extreme, I don't believe in it

I just hope it gets parties to the table to discuss. I think this Mexican standoff shows how dpos has its limitations and in a small chain like this supermajority can be used at will but I would hope that in future in theory it becomes more competitive as people pull witness votes and move them to where they see fit and so it goes on.

We can't change what happened but lets see how the all hands ends up! I think its just poor communication everyone wants the same thing and has different ideas on how to get to the same destination

$0.00

https://steemit.com/steemit/@justinsunsteemit/open-letter-to-steem-community

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

It already resulted in parties coming to the table to discuss. It's set for 6th of March. See:

$0.00

bifilarcoil (58) · 5 years ago

The mobsters have self exposed?

$0.00

joythewanderer (78) · 5 years ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

$0.00

kramgelo (48) · 5 years ago

Nice vlog with a different view, others don't agree with the softfork and this post help them to speak up.

$0.00

reddust (71) · 5 years ago

I just came back to Steemit because I have time to start producing content again and I thought I was over my utter disgust of Steemit Management. Now I need to step back and take a look at what's going on. I understand the concern of the Huuuge amount of Steem that needs to be protected against the stakeholder using it for purposes that weren't agreed upon. From the beginning, I've felt uneasy and to really concerned over the huge amount of premined steem. That's why I think we need to get everyone to the table and write out a contract that protects all the property holders. I also think Ned needs to be taken to court for fraud but we don't know if Justin knew about the contract between Steem Inc and Steemit community. I get confused over this issue and the players involved, like Steem Ink, miners, bloggers, apps developers...you know all the players. So confusing! @exyle, I stopped by Steemit Chat and noticed you left me a message back in 2018, I didn't have my notifications turned on, I wasn't ignoring you....lolol

$0.00

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

Welcome to Delegated Proof of Stake. This is how it works. This is how it was designed from the start.

It's kind of a shock that you didn't know.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 5 years ago

"It's kind of a shock that you didn't know."

It was kind of a shock to many of us who were discussing this all week as well. We were under the impression that, as a long-time user, investor, and witness, Exyle understood how DPoS worked.

We also were surprised to learn that his account of what has taken place was very factually inaccurate (as I explained in my other comment to this post). Perhaps if he had spent a little more time engaging in the discussions - instead of showing up for just over an hour a couple of days ago and telling us how we didn't understand what we're doing, then leaving - he may have had a more firm grasp of the situation and, you know...the actual facts.

$0.00

chekohler (70) · 5 years ago

Indeed, if the supermajority agree their will be done be it good or bad it be done!

$0.00

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

Yeah, that's exactly how DPOS works. But as a community we can vote on witnesses. So please take this lesson to make sure you vote on the witnesses you trust. And if you believe the POV of @blockbrothers is the best, tell everyone to vote for them and why.

$0.25

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

Yeah, that’s what we need.. a witness who doesn’t even understand DPOS. 🙌🏼

$0.00

katteasis (63) · 5 years ago

aha

$0.00

fitzgibbon (61) · 5 years ago

Let's not be too harsh here. Looking at the video he struck me as being pretty emotional about it. I think it's because he just loves Steem too much. Love can sometimes blind a man a bit, don't you think?

$0.00

cyberdemon531 (71) · 5 years ago

I believe the difference between selling the stake on binance and selling it all at once is just decentralization. Not that I disagree with your points, just throwin that out there.

$0.00

joebrochin (63) · 5 years ago

In the end, there is nothing that is decentralized. The large stakeholders of anything will have the greatest influence. Decentralization when it comes to anything of value is laughable.

$0.00

cryptocurator (65) · 5 years ago

I have been writing in my post today about Witness votes. I can't quiet believe how few of the Top 35 are still running software version 0.22.1, and how many opted for so called softfork222. I totally understand and respect how you feel, it's another piece of shocking news on the platform. I think fair to describe the Steem as frozen but a little emotive to describe as stolen. I'm sure a resolution will be made, I am surprised to see the 6th March mentioned as the opening of talks - meaning it might not be resolved very fast! It would have been nice to clear up within a week!

steemd-witnesses- Top35.jpg

$0.00

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

Sad day. And we'll all feel the consequences.

$0.00

summertooth (72) · 5 years ago

I'm with you 100% @exyle. It really is unbelievable to do this to anyone. It's stealing plain and simple. Sad day.

$0.00

inertia (73) · 5 years ago

$0.00

bitshares101 (49) · 5 years ago

Excellent points! Well said!

$0.00

nokodemion (59) · 5 years ago

Respect!!! Exyle!!! An eyeopener!!!

$0.00

markkujantunen (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

While I considered the situation dangerous, I was also of the opinion that no token swap would be in the cards for a very long time because nobody would agree to any such thing until the Steem blockchain would be fully replicated in functionality on the Tron blockchain. Migrating Steem to Tron would be a massive undertaking. Smart contracts on Tron are written in Solidity and only a few devs at Steemit, Inc know the code inside and out. Are those guys also well versed in Solidity? Not very likely. There is zero chance of Steem being migrated to Tron in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, I consider the decision to do the soft fork rash. Now there is a trust issue between Justin Sun and a supermajority of the current witnesses of Steem. I hope it can be resolved. But once Sun's stake is released, what exactly will prevent him from voting in a totally different set of witnesses at the drop of a hat?

$0.00

animica (50) · 5 years ago (edited)

removed

$0.00

pfunk (72) · 5 years ago

The announcement post didn't set the context explicitly, assuming the audience would have a good idea. I wrote a post to fill in those blanks. I'm interested to know if it changes your opinion at all. Even if it doesn't I would still like the feedback. Thanks!

$0.00

blanchy (65) · 5 years ago

I 100% agree with you. Well done for having your say.

$0.00

drakos (70) · 5 years ago

Previously, "behind closed doors", Ned sold Steemit Inc to Justin, without communication, without warning...

$0.00

defimoon (25) · 5 years ago

I just joined Steemit and am truly disappointed Justin from Tron has bought this platform.

People really need to research all the drama with Tron and the shenanigans Justin pulled there.

Now that his stake has been blocked, his only option is to play nice until his funds are unblocked, at which point he will either power-down or setup his own witnesses and vote them in.

Does anyone actually know how much money Justin paid for Steemit?

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

This is the most twisted narrative of these events I’ve seen so far, from someone who was privy to information spoken about for over a week in many open chats.

If you don’t know how this soft fork works, how the blockchain works or anything else, perhaps you should have asked for more clarification when you came in for 5mins to ask questions and essentially say you didn’t have time to catch up on anything.

This sort of narrative is dangerous and false, perhaps take some time to educate yourself rather than trying to get more attention or maybe living up to agreements you made.

You aren’t doing anyone a favor spreading false information, in fact as a witness you should be ashamed, as you are hurting the community and chain you have agreed to protect.

Disagree with the change all you want, thats the beauty of the system, but stop spreading false claims and inaccuracies.

$0.00

bennierex (58) · 5 years ago

Why do you make this personal? He’s just expressing his opinion/feelings.

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

No, he’s spreading false information. He was in the communication and knows what happened, his opinion doesn’t need to include false information, which leads me to believe there is a reason for it. Or perhaps he honestly has no idea how any of this works, which is fair, but in that case he really shouldn’t be attempting to tell others how it does.

False information is not helpful, it’s actually harmful.

$0.00

bennierex (58) · 5 years ago

What false info?

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

The whole entire narrative - no accounts have been nullified, the blockchain and it’s governance has not been changed, communication was had in many places, including reaching out to all those in involved. This is not the first time things like this have happened on Steem and it doesn’t “change Steem forever”. Therefore having an opinion or even disagreeing with the choices is fair.. spreading false information is not. I think David’s comment on this post touches on this all in a very eloquent way that I agree with, perhaps that will help. Or you can keep downvoting me and ignore your responsibilities as a part of the blockbrothers witness as well.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

someone told me on chat at discord that communication with tron fondation was attempted but no details on it. who tried, how, with whom, were they ignored. i feel that is pretty important, and no one talked about it.

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

Multiple attempts were made to contact him or his team by multiple people through many means - email, slack, etc There was no response until his post went out shortly after the announcement post.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

as i said multiple times, communication shitshow continues. it is as we are living in the 15th century and our messingers get robbed and shot all the time so there is no way to talk to each other...

$0.00

bennierex (58) · 5 years ago

What responsibilities am I ignoring exactly? I disagree with you, and accept you disagreeing with us, but I can’t see why you need to personally attack me and @exyle on this...

$0.00

justineh (71) · 5 years ago

I’m not personally attacking either of you in the slightest. I’m attacking the narrative being spread on extremely false accusations and the reasoning for doing so.. and well, I’m not even “attacking”, I’m stating my disapproval as well as highlighting the false claims. Not really sure why you keep saying I’m attacking you tbh 🤷‍♀️

$0.12

ats-david (74) · 5 years ago

See my comment at the top of this post.

$0.00

shadowspub (70) · 5 years ago

hi @exyle would you mind dropping me a DM on Discord please?

$0.00

hammers (44) · 5 years ago (edited)

Witnesses could always do things like this at any time. I think they're justified. The tweet about making Steem a tron token can't be ignored. Maybe they should of done this a long time ago, that's my only complaint. I hope Justin can negotiate with them and build some trust, that works both ways.

$0.00

themonetaryfew (58) · 5 years ago

Checks and Balances

This is a great thing for the STEEM blockchain. One can't just buy a big stake of STEEM and keep on repeating you aim to convert the token to another blockchain. Not by buying your stake on Binance or OTC. It indeed doesn't matter!

Let's say you consider Steemit INC to be the 'government' of the STEEM blockchain, it's a great move of the 'parliament' of the STEEM blockchain to take precaution. It's not hostile, just being sure there are checks and balances.
STEEM is not the same as bitcoin. This is DPOS and it's how it is supposed to work.

$0.00

oldstone (84) · 5 years ago

Dpos of Steemit is failure. We need to fix it

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

omrfrq18 (44) · 5 years ago

Thanks for this post.

$0.00

theabsolute (63) · 5 years ago

I see both sides to this. It isn't really a surprise anymore than the acquisition from Justin Sun in the first place. There is a path forward that benefits everyone. The stakeholders need some reassurance that their investments are not in jeopardy

$0.00

mattclarke (68) · 5 years ago

He started talking contradictory gibberish, and was otherwise unresponsive, so they took his car keys.
That's being a good friend.
March 6th is 'the morning after'; where they'll check he's sobered up and understands the consequences of his actions.
That's also when they have a chance to transition from 'good friend' to 'car thief'.
I support this action; I believe it was the right choice at the time, but the onus now is on the witnesses to provide a clear, simple path to a roll-back.
No hurdles, no hoops.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

My opinion was that a few other chains have fork out cause of issues like disagreement about how certain stake was acquired.
Also, Steem has to be one of the firdt where the foundation company was sold for a profit.
In amycase I'm for the soft chain, but I completely understand why others aren't.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

Sorry to elaborate after watching:

I think the threat to Dpos has always been there, it's just now been realized and you seemed shocked by that which is the main issue for most people not supporting this decision (I know you really like Steem and have a ton of faith in it which I admire). As you can notice, 'skeptic' is in my name.

point that I only noticed after watching is when you talk about buying on the market (ie. binance) vs over the counter (behind closed doors from ned), you say there is no difference and don't agree that one is worse than the other. I agree with this point, it wouldn't actually wash the 'ninjamined' steem clean or make it any more or less right for either party. It doesn't change anything, but it may earn Ned less (we have no idea) and it would probably cost Justin a lot more (70 million Steem bought would skyrocket the price or take forever). I definitely know a lot of people here would cash out if the price suddenly increase to like 5$ because someone wanted to buy 70 million Steem. Alternatively, it would crash if Ned said he was powering down and putting it on the market over the next 13 weeks.

So the ninjamined Steem had to be bought under the table to control the price. In otherwords, the transfer didn't affect the price as much as buying on the exchange would. Also, we wouldn't even know who bought it and who to target. I think it isn't unreasonable to say a favour was done to us here. Justin is willing to talk, which is obviously better than whatever ned was doing for the last few years.

The main question is are we better off with Tron than Steemit? I think Justin is better than Ned, but I can see why the witnesses have no trust in him. He does run his mouth a bit and act full of himself (probably because he has some super inflated ego).

I have no problem with a little arm twisting because he needs it and I never had full faith in Dpos being absolute to begin with. We are just as secure as before (we were never secure).

Last, I don't think it was mentioned, but bringing up intangible things like who started this (obviously ned did) between witnesses or justin is unproductive. Here we are, let's hope people realize how serious this is and see what happens on the 6th. What will justin agree to? What will he offer? Hopefully he realizes what ninjamined implies for those who want to freeze him temporarily. I'm sure you are waiting too.

$0.00

marki99 (54) · 5 years ago

It's impossible to argue with your position. Principles are principles and there are no exceptions. It would've been better to have a contract written up outside of the chain, a legal agreement.

$0.00

mulletwang (59) · 5 years ago

You raise some very interesting points that I wasn't aware of. Thank you sharing this information.

I think it is super interesting, it shows the possibilities within the governance structure. You are absolutely right when you say it will impact steem... but I'm not sure it is as negative as you believe it is.

$0.00

yangyanje (63) · 5 years ago

I am completely shattered by this! It's unbelievable! How can this happen? It's as if decentralization here is a lie? I agree with the over the counter. This is Hierarchy and class system at a whole new level. Ha! The ruling class of oligarchs have decided? He bought the bloody stake and i had such a great feeling about what he was aspiring to do. Marrying one of the four potentially best DLT crypto Networks to make three powerful entities that are actually corporative communities was amazing news. Can there still be a consensus? It sounds so immature and pretty shattering to my austro libetarian attitude towards the most exciting thing since the invention of the internet itself!

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

Well he forgot to add a link that to Justins blog when just few hours after that he said, "well i did not expect that but we have plans to talk so here is a first steemit Town hall in 2 weeks.

well he said it, but did not included the link. Well you have your sources most of us don't. The problem with ninja steem should have been dealt with long time ago. and witnesses are at fault that it did not happen. (it is not the best analogy but what do you think should happen if you buy a stolen car?)

$0.00

raycoms (70) · 5 years ago

Centralization: Single stakeholder has all the power (If Sun would use the Steem Power to vote on witnesses)
Decentralization: Witnesses make decisions to guarantee the decentralization of the chain (What happened).

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

Lol. I sometimes feel folks dont even understand the meaning of the words coming out of their mouths.

$0.00

flemingfarm (68) · 5 years ago

The BEST part of this whole ordeal is the witnesses actually being proactive and using the consensus as it should be. This is the first time in my memory of this chain that this has happened. Being that this is reversible and a SOFT fork, as long as the dialog gets going and in the open then I think this will be a net positive. Though this should have been done 2 years ago, at least it is being addressed now.

$0.00

broncnutz (77) · 5 years ago

Good video, I can definitely see both sides. I do like to talk this out and right the wrong after talks. Something was bound to happen because this was a big move. Ned and Justin are both to blame because they could have planned this out better. I believe Justin owns the stake, he paid for it.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I can see both sides too. I can understand from their viewpoint the reasoning of why they went to these measures. I just don't agree with it at all.

I think there was no treat but besides that, I think the buy was legit and he owns the tokens and therefore can do what he wants with it.

I think the precedent that has been created that under certain circumstances accounts can be frozen is far more dangerous then blocking steem biggest investor from accessing his legitimate stake that he bought.

$0.00

hilarski (76) · 5 years ago

Straight up Gangster, this is a sad day for Steem.

$0.00

michealb (66) · 5 years ago

hey how come i never see you on splinterlands? seem to run into a heap of other people but not you.

$0.00

exyle (79) · 5 years ago

I play from time to time, but usually in the gold league with my second set. Maybe we meet one day :)

$0.00

emiliomorles (70) · 5 years ago

I agree completely

$0.00

bittrio (66) · 5 years ago

@exyle Steem is DPOS - Steem is not money, Bitcoin is money. The top witnesses did what they thought they had to do to protect their investments and the Steem blockchain. This would be horrible if Steem was money and some group froze another account, but this could be good for Steem. People throw around the word decentralized, obviously not if anyone's funds can be frozen. Now you know, it's Bitcoin or bust for money, Steem's a great social platform. Invest accordingly.

$0.00

ammonite (67) · 5 years ago

I was quite surprised when the soft fork happened but initially thought it was the best temporary approach till a better idea was gotten about the intentions of Sun, I agree they are his tokens and he can do what he wants but to have such a big stake holder come in and say we all moving to Tron and having the voting power to change the governance model just like that was a bit of a shock.
I only wished that the witnesses could have suspended the possibility of voting for witnesses for now due to governance concerns but still allowed for all the other elements like power down, vote on content etc. There should also have been a clear exit criteria.
It is for sure a scary time for Steem and DPOS and I hope that this can be worked through.

$0.00

pele23 (68) · 5 years ago

I am completely following you here, it is the beginning of a war, that can only be turned back to peace if Justin Sun shows "good attitude" in the eyes of the witnesses. But what is the line he can't cross? Will they decide what underwear he has to wear? Which woman he fucks? It is clear theft, in my opinion...

$0.00

davedickeyyall (73) · 5 years ago

What other witnesses support you in this thinking?

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.06

davedickeyyall (73) · 5 years ago

Well I've been working on switching them up.. I am definitely against freeing someone's account..

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

sgt-dan (61) · 5 years ago

Tim Cliff also dissented in the implementation of the soft-fork.

davedickeyyall (73) · 5 years ago

Yes I saw that. He got a witness vote from me. Thanks

$0.00