The DAO's funding doesn't require supporters to part with any funds. You can go to proposals and vote and votes are weighted according to your Steem Power. I voted on several and didn't cost me a milli-Steem.
There is a special "return proposal". If any proposal doesn't have as much Steem Power voting for it, then that proposal wont get funded. Justin Sun voted such that this was so high no proposals were being funded.
The Dao fund was never Justin's money. He just has influence on it because he has a lot of Steem power.
The way Steem is, and its forks are, it is just too easy to block someone's funds. I am not sure whether Monero solves this problem or not. Suppose I put my Monero address on my profile, and the mining pools of Monero decide they want to block me. Can they?
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I appreciate it. I had no idea how it worked. I thought literal funds were cut (out of a fund, out of Steemit's fund).
So where do the funds come from? Do they come from post rewards?
Or, is there a DAO fund being drawn from? Who holds it?
Oh, I agree, it is very centralized, the way it currently sits. The actual community has virtually no say.
I hope Justin's intentions were to temporarily put everything on hold while the smoke clears, and not a permanent action. He talked about giving rights to the community, I hope he will follow through.
I think the real question here is, how does one give the power back to the people? Can it be done? How?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@steem.dao was funded with voting rewards and many users who tend to get big payouts setting it as a beneficiary to their posts. The account is not really a smart-contract like in Ethereum because Steem doesn't have a scripting language like that.
It was a way to socialize investment into the blockchain ecosystem.
The people have never really had "the power" to begin with. We have always been beholden to and at the mercy of those who have larger stake.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe they could in theory, but there is no single point of "failure" for blockchains like bitcoin and monero.
If the "top 20" monero, or bitcoin miners "blocked" (ignored) all your transaction requests, you'd barely notice.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
These eighteen pools take up a pretty complete set of the pie. If they all got together and conspired to block a particular address, my transactions couldn't get into a block.
I want to be wrong about this. But here it is. I probably have bitcoin in many different keys, with change addresses and so on. I don't see a technical reason that they couldn't block a particular address from transacting on a Bitcoin like chain (UTXO chain). It is easier to identify who is who on some BitShares derived chain (Bitshares, Whaleshares, Steem, Golos, EOS, and Hive), however.
Also with UTXO chains, users will typically have a private/public key for eacch transaction. So the phrase "block my bitcoin address" is better stated as "block one of my bitcoin addresses" or perhaps they could block many as they link more and more to my identity.
Then we come to incentives. There isn't the same incentives to freeze funds on a UTXO chain. If Satoshi Nakamoto comes back and wants to spend his coins, miners may not like to see a price-value halvening, so there is a short-term incentive to want to block large transfers from being mined. Of course such a scandal should make the bitcoin price drop a lot anyway.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh, right, and "unknown" is sitting at 11.1%
Good luck trying to get them to cooperate.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh good. I missed that. With this pie we for every nine blocks it would be outside of this quorum of 17 on average
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I remember with CEX hit 51%
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent analysis.
I didn't realize there were fewer than 20 major pools.
The good news here is that it is notoriously difficult to get bitcoin miners to agree on anything. Bitcoin-Cash demonstrated that pretty effectively.
Also, there is no pre-existing "leadership mechanism". It's 51% or nothing.
I guess we just need a few major news stories about how "Jeffrey Epstein's bitcoin accounts must be frozen" in order to test the resilience and integrity of the system, because as we've seen here on steem, once you make up excuses to freeze one account, then all bets are off.
Are you familiar with https://holochain.org/ ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
> Are you familiar with https://holochain.org/ ?
Never heard of it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I ran across it recently and it looks interesting,
Holochain is an open source framework for building fully distributed, peer-to-peer applications.
Holochain is BitTorrent + Git + Cryptographic Signatures + Peer Validation + Gossip.
Holochain apps are versatile, resilient, scalable, and thousands of times more efficient than blockchain (no token or mining required). The purpose of Holochain is to enable humans to interact with each other by mutual-consent to a shared set of rules, without relying on any authority to dictate or unilaterally change those rules. Peer-to-peer interaction means you own and control your data, with no intermediary (e.g., Google, Facebook, Uber) collecting, selling, or losing it. **
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit