Tron and Steemit Join Forces

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

SteemIt Inc has controlled a very large portion of the STEEM tokens since its inception. At one point over 50%. Now, SteemIt, Inc retains ownership of about 20% of the entire STEEM token economy.

SteemIt, Inc made various promises and verbal (typed) contracts to the community. SteemIt, Inc even created a hardfork that added the ability for a user to decline the ability to vote for posts or witnesses, or set a witness proxy.

My question is, what is going to happen with these arrangements. What is going to happen with the SteemIt, Inc stake and the millions of tokens that are hiding on various exchanges? Binance has showed that they will use their (purchased?) stake to vote for SRs on Tron.

Will SteemIt/Tron be participating in voting for witnesses via the consensus protocol of Steem? Will SteemIt/Tron be using the company stake to vote for posts? Will SteemIt/Tron use the millions of liquid STEEM tokens to participate in the internal market or the various exchange markets?

I raise these questions in particular due to the fact that @justinsunsteemit has used premined company stake on Tron recently to participate in the consensus protocol by voting for SRs. @justinsunsteemit also uses language like this when discussing his plans for Tron: https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1230224864725700608

Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 4.57.29 PM.png

As you can tell, @justinsunsteemit idea for how to manage Tron does not really fit with the community and ideals of Steem. Will SteemIt, Inc finally utilize the decline_voting_rights operation?

Thanks for your information and I eagerly await your response!

$20.28

fredrikaa (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

I think doing this would be vital not only for the sake of the Steem community, stakeholders and witnesses, but also for Tron to successfully gain the community and dApp ecosystem that they clearly have hoped for (judging by the communications). Many want to believe that this can indeed be a win-win as stated in the article, and removing any doubt that another important promise by Steemit Inc on its use of stake will also be delivered on would do wonders to cement this belief.

$0.15

joshman (70) · 5 years ago

Will SteemIt, Inc finally utilize the decline_voting_rights operation?

This is the sort of signal I would want to see to halt my power downs, and possibly buy more. Right now the pragmatic thing for me is to get as liquid as possible, as quickly as possible, and wait for clarity.

$0.08

wehmoen (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

joshman (70) · 5 years ago

The wider the scope the better, but I was just thinking of it in terms of witness voting as the context of the quote would indicate.

$0.03

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

It prevents both.

$0.00

anthonyadavisii (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Good! Prevents another attack vector albeit one that would likely be more conspicuous. Btw respect your stance.

I'm concerning that it will take is one Judas witness and others will be tempted. If that is something that we could expect, hope we nip the problem in the bud somehow.

wehmoen (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

It does indeed. It will remove proxies and witness votes.

$0.00

drakos (70) · 5 years ago

Fall in line or you will be punished.

anthonyadavisii (70) · 5 years ago

May be a bit much but...

8 votes

madalchemist (52) · 5 years ago

That's the best I've seen yet kudos sir

$0.00

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

As you can tell, @justinsunsteemit idea for how to manage Tron does not really fit with the community and ideals of Steem.

Exactly this. He needs to be aware that he won't be met with optimism and a warm welcome if he suddenly appears and announces plans that go against the core values of Steem. His lack of understanding of Steem's foundations and lack of interest to communicate with the community should be considered hostility.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

Amen

$0.00

freddio (61) · 5 years ago

would be really nice to know

anthonyadavisii (70) · 5 years ago

Ninjamine. Not even once.

Yeah I know that hindsights 20/20. Wish everybody the best. Prepare your keisters and don't forget!

$0.00

https://steemit.com/steemit/@aggroed/a-brief-history-of-the-ninja-mine

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

for those who do not know what the Ninja Mine is , our Blockchain has a shady past

$0.07

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Nice good job informing people. This illegitimate stake is precisely what needs to be properly controlled and prevented from being used to destroy Steem.

novacadian (58) · 5 years ago

We can thank @ned's ineptitude for the ninja mined tokens to no longer being 40+%. Decentralization takes time. 😎

$0.00

coastline17 (54) · 5 years ago

I kept hearing about this. Thank you for posting. I just joined the community and really love the concepts, I wish I got in on it earlier after being a member for such a short time and then seeing all this Justin Sun commotion. #scaredtobuybagsnow

$0.00

notconvinced (59) · 5 years ago

Well put and I am wondering as well on all these points. Justin is not the most trustworthy.

$0.00

kingscrown (81) · 5 years ago

decline_voting_rights doesnt really change anything as they can delegate or move to exchanges and back (you know how mrdelegate and other odd accounts came to life). so in the end its at - do they fullfill promises or not.

$0.00

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

It isnt meant to destroy their tokens or value. If thats what you think is "doing something" then that's fair; but I disagree.

They own their tokens. We just want them to show a good faith "contract" to not purposefully use the stake to undermine the consensus layer or the rewards system.

They could always transfer tokens, power down to a new account, etc. But it would be an obvious violation of promises and an indicator of hostility towards the Steem blockchain and its community.

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

What do you think of 1sp 1witness vote?

$0.00

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

I am not against it. Someone smarter than me would have to think about the possible pitfalls, but I personally think it makes sense.

At the very least, a user should not be able to vote for more witnesses than is required for majority consensus. Aka, less than 15 votes preferably. 1 vote is definitely less than 15 :)

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Time to distribute the power held by the creators, they've sold us down the river.

Just when I was having hope again, too.
FML.

$0.00

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

Is your hope slightly renewed? :)

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Much better now, but that is what I was saying just before stinc became stunc, too.
At least we are acting as a collective, now.
For better, or worse.

$0.00

Show 3 more replies

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

It weakens the security of the chain generally (lower stake threshold to vote in malicious witnesses) but that may be a reasonable tradeoff to reduce the control of the largest stakeholder(s).

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

If the largest continues to persist in its vision of kneecapping us so we don't change the world, we can just pack it in.

We've gone from stinc to stunc, in that case.
JS bought his stake, let's hope he is onboard with the rest of us, and not here to string us further along.

Won't this change slow any one account from voting in 17 witnesses?
Thereby increasing the stake needed to rule the chain?

How complicated is the coding change?
If trivial, any hope of getting it in the next fork?

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

It doesn't literally do that. Given the numbers, if you assume (probably incorrectly) that a Tron/Steemit bloc would have no other support, then it probably couldn't vote in 17 witnesses, and certainly would have a harder time doing so. But with even some additional support (which IMO is likely given marketing/campaigning/etc.), they could probably still do it. Pretty damn hard to come up with voting rules that block stake that is 50% larger than entire rest of the voting population. This isn't just trying to block a tiny majority (say 51%), it is trying to block a very significant supermajority.

In doing so you inevitably weaken the chain against smaller-stake attackers. Still, the compromise may be worth it.

I doubt it is that complicated, and it could be possibly be done.

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Hmm,...I agree that stake will find friends willing to sell out.
We are playing crapitalism, after all, and easy money is the sweetest.

Am I wrong thinking that voting full sp on 30 witnesses is alot more than voting full sp divided by up to 30 witnesses?

Rather than voting 1m sp 30x, each vote is reduced by concurrent votes on more than one, 1m sp on one, 500k on two, 333k on three, etc.

I fail to see how this would empower small accounts in any attacks.

$0.00

Show 22 more replies

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

Good questions and I encourage them towards transparency so that Steem users can be aware of what is happening. I'm going to try to remain open minded between the pros and cons concerning many things. I'm not totally sure what to think at the moment. That's why I'm here.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago

Presently witness votes multiply the advantage of large stake holders 30x. @edicted seriously proposes changing witness votes to 1Steem=1vote, which is how DPoS should work to effect governance.

While this change would impact @justinsunsteemit's ability to exercise arbitrary governance of Steem, it would not eliminate his ability to exercise the stake he controls to effect governance of Steem rationally. I strongly support this proposed change to how governance of Steem is effected.

Thanks!

$0.00

supergiant (66) · 5 years ago

whats going on. I want to see my following user's post.

$0.59

geekgirl (72) · 5 years ago

if you are on mobile, you may have to manually enter steemit.com/@supergiant/feed

on desktop “my friends” looks like is the new feed.

$0.43

supergiant (66) · 5 years ago

thanks for your help

$0.37

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

Thanks, Geek Girl.

$0.00

lukestokes (75) · 5 years ago

Have there been any discussions with the Tron team about the will of the witnesses and the token holders they represent? There have been many concerning posts from the Tron marketing team (including Poloniex) describing a token swap of “old Steem” tokens to Tron based tokens. I hope it has been made very clear to the Tron team that the witnesses are ready to support the chain as it is now because that is the job we are elected to do. If the token holders want a change, we’ll listen, state our positions, and they will vote accordingly.

That said, I think the potential for new marketing, promotion, resources, and development could be fantastic for both communities. I hope they join together for mutual benefit while respecting the many years of work and commitment that got us here.

As a witness, I look forward to connecting with the Tron team and discussing the history of this community and what expectations we are facilitating.

$0.42

7 votes

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

There have been many concerning posts from the Tron marketing team (including Poloniex) describing a token swap of “old Steem” tokens to Tron based tokens. I hope it has been made very clear to the Tron team that the witnesses are ready to support the chain as it is now because that is the job we are elected to do. If the token holders want a change, we’ll listen, state our positions, and they will vote accordingly.

Thanks for giving me another reasonable witness to vote for. This is how change should be addressed.

$0.00

leprechaun (56) · 5 years ago

They could be thinking of some kind of Pegged-Steem on Tron.

$0.00

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

Luke, you are thinking win-win, AKA mutual benefit, and I agree, and I hope they don't try to do what Facebook does. I'm not saying they can. I'm just speaking theoretically to an extent, meaning they could try. I don't know one way or another. I'm just thinking hypothetically, long-term speaking, as I'm concerned with slippery slopes, AKA the ability for good things to declines towards potential risks, problems, relating to censorship. The only thing more critical than censorship might be in regards to the mechanism behind voting for witnesses, who gets to vote, the weight of the votes, the whole system, which could be dangerous if Tron were to have too much power over voting for witnesses. Well, I'm not sure how it works. So, I can't say Tron has too much power. I'm just saying that if they do, then that can be dangerous. But then again, maybe not dangerous. But the possibility is still there.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

ultimately enables the TRON and Steem ecosystems to form a mutually beneficial connection.

I personally see absolutely nothing beneficial TRON may offer me except money to fund you guys..

I find TRON to be a centralized piece of shit blockchain that is almost completely controlled by Justin and Binance. (Kinda kills the point of a blockchain, doesnt it.)

If you get funded to continue working on STEEM, im happy with that.
My biggest fears of Justin attempting a powerplay to become a "De facto" owner of the chain still remains and i think that should be addressed before anything else.
We need to put in safeguards in place.
We need to keep Steem decentralized and this purchase by Justin clearly shows how vulnerable we really are.

$0.07

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

It's baked in the cake.
Proof of stake bites us in the ass.

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

oldtimer (75) · 5 years ago

I know what you mean an I'm well aware of this. But now when we're kind of in the spotlight the things can change overnight. A couple of big investors can clean out the exchanges and our distribution is skewed again.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago

Considering your concerns, I hope you will advocate for changing witness votes to reflect how DPoS should actually work. Presently 1 Steem = 30 witness votes, which multiplies the advantage large stakeholders have 30x.

It is proposed that 1 Steem = 1 witness vote. This is how the community of stakeholders should effect governance via DPoS.

Thanks!

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

Id like to see multiple options be presented and scenarios played out to see which option is the best.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

I resort to sound principle when considering things, and I think you tend to as well, which is why we agree so often. DPoS is based on stake creating and resulting from greater skin in the game, and stake should therefore be an accurate representation of governance, which 1 Steem = 1 vote is.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

It isn't a matter of how it 'should' work. The current system is an approximation of approval voting (in fact, under true approval voting the number of votes would be unlimited, but this was changed not for any governance reason but due to an exploit concerning backup witnesses).

Approval voting has the property of electing the witnesses which are approved by the broadest and maximum amount of voting stake. Under most conditions this would be good, as it sets the maximum threshold for an attacker to come in with a narrow amount of stake and elect witnesses contrary to the broader consensus.

In this case, what people are trying to accomplish is not to represent the broadest and maximum amount of stake, but in fact handicap the largest stakeholder (who in fact has an absolute majority relative to actively voting stake). In a sense, this is exactly the opposite of what good, secure, governance would do.

That being said, it may be a reasonable tradeoff (lower security for less majority control) to limit the influence of the largest stakeholder in this specific situation.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

Presently the witness voting system multiplies the advantage of substantial stakeholders 30x over lesser staked voters.

Given Steem's situation has evolved from when the founders held the stake they mined, and now that stake is no longer in the hands of the founders, it's best to remove the mechanism that allowed them to exercise instant governance of Steem at their sole option, which is what the 30x votepower did.

Theoretically the community could band together and prevent that stake from completely effecting control of consensus witnesses, sooner or later. In reality one stakeholder will be focused on a purpose, while hundreds or thousands will be diverse instead, and will be very unlikely to focus enough to successfully oppose that stake if it is deployed malevolently.

Tron could sell to Goolag, and then we'd end.

Representing stake 30x does not increase the range of stake represented. It simply increases the advantage large stakeholders have over lesser stakeholders by 30x.

It's a vast increase in security - not a decrease - to change witness voting to 1 Steem = 1 vote.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Presently the witness voting system multiplies the advantage of substantial stakeholders 30x over lesser staked voters

No it doesn't. Everyone has the same 30 votes, both big and small alike. Both stakes are multiplied to the extent that all 30 votes are used.

1 SP = 30 SP worth of votes
1 million SP = 30 million SP worth of votes.

There is no systematic multiplication of larger stake over smaller here.

What multiple votes (approaching the original full approval voting with unlimited votes) does do, among other things, mostly good, is a better job of translating the choices of the majority of stake into a full set of witnesses acceptable to the largest share of stake, and protected against smaller share attackers.

Given Steem's situation has evolved from when the founders held the stake they mined, and now that stake is no longer in the hands of the founders

I don't necessarily disagree with your point here, but realize that what you are proposing is enabling a sort of "attack" where the minority stake (about 40%) is given increased power, because in this case we've decided that the majority (about 60%) happens to no longer be owned by founders, and that is "no good".

That certainly 'feels' like a good thing in this particular situation, but it wouldn't feel like a good thing if the 40% were in the hands of someone trying to cause damage and the 60% were in "good" hands. The existing system is more secure because it would keeps that from happening; the proposed one would not.

Again, this could be an acceptable, even perhaps desirable, tradeoff, but don't fail to recognize it for what it is.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

You can say what you want to, but the example you pose proves my point. The holder of 1 Million SP gained 29 Million, while the holder of 1 SP gained 29, a difference of 28,999,971 in favor of the larger stakeholder. The 30x increase in SP of larger stakeholders dramatically increases their influence over the witnesses, and I reckon the founders did this in order to be able to attain instant total control of Steem governance at their sole option, which the founder's stake enabled.

It enables that control still, but the founders no longer possess it.

If removing the back door to total control over Steem, and the massive grant of power to larger stakeholders over lesser, is considered an 'attack' then so is surgery for cancer.

There is no reason to continue practices that benefited the founders when those founders are no longer here.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

Honestly that is a silly argument. In any system of votes if you multiply everyone's votes by 2 or 10 or 1/2 or a million, everyone still has the same share of the votes.

The multiplication does not do what you claim.

There are good reasons for approval-type voting in this context which have nothing to do with the founders wanting to have had complete control. In fact, originally the founders had a much larger share than Tron has now, and probably would have had complete control even under the system you propose.

What you are trying to do is give more influence to a distinct minority stake. That's laudable in some sense, but you can't avoid recognizing that weakens the security of the chain, which relies on: a) the majority being honest, and b) maximizing the threshold that a dishonest minority much reach in order to gain influence.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

"In any system of votes if you multiply everyone's votes by 2 or 10 or 1/2 or a million, everyone still has the same share of the votes."

I disagree that this is equitable, because witness votes are measured in Steem voted them. While proportions may remain relatively the same, in real terms the larger stakes effect greater influence over the witnesses. 30M votes greatly outweighs 3M votes in an election, and it doesn't matter at all that they are proportionately the same to the actual stake of the voters. In real votes they are dramatically divergent, and that's how witness votes are counted.

But you know that.

"What you are trying to do is give more influence to a distinct minority stake."

Well, what I am seeking to do is to eliminate the massive over representation of substantial stakeholders to influence the witnesses by multiplying their VP 30 fold. They already have most of the stake. Letting them vote it 30 times increases their influence, which is already greater than all the redfish and minnows together, 30 fold more. Doing that does increase the influence of the majority of voters, so despite phrasing it pejoratively as if it were undue granting of privilege, it is technically increasing the influence of the majority of voters, by reducing the undue influence that has previously been granted whales, so that the founder's stake could exercise instant at will control of the governance of the chain. While the founder's stake was not deployed, the whales enjoyed 30x the influence on the witnesses their stakes merited over redfish, minnows, and dolphins.

What is necessary to improve security of the witnesses with the founders stake in the wild now, is to eliminate that disproportionate influence allowing that massive stake to vote 30 times. The witnesses aren't voted proportionately, but actually. The Steem backing them is what counts. Larger stakes voting once wield 30x less Steem in real terms than they do voting 30x.

But you know that.

"...the security of the chain, which relies on: a) the majority being honest, and b) maximizing the threshold that a dishonest minority much reach in order to gain influence."

This is no justification for granting large stakeholders 30x more votes. That's a ludicrous argument, because whales and orcas alone wield more stake than all redfish, minnows, and dolphins combined. Those lesser stakeholders, the majority of the voters, aren't the threat to the security of the chain.

It's the whales that are the minority with a majority stake that is a threat to the security of the chain, and particularly the one stakeholder with ~1/3 of extant stake, because 30x over representation grants them inordinate power to influence the witnesses.

Do not misrepresent these facts any longer. It is facile to see through your mischaracterization.

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

Once the two teams are able to come to a consensus on the roadmap, that information will be shared with the community.

And what about the community coming to a consensus regarding those potential changes?

whatsup (75) · 5 years ago

Only the top 20 witnesses need to reach consensus, the communities' input is via stakebased voting for witnesses.

$0.00

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

And if high ranking witnesses are taking actions you disagree with, I advise you to remove your vote for them or campaign for yourself or other witnesses.

$0.03

anthonyadavisii (70) · 5 years ago

Adding you back. Thanks for the reminder.

$0.00

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

I understand that, it's more of a worry regarding the fact that those witnesses and that entire structure itself is merely ignored with changes being implemented without asking the community to discuss and vote first.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 5 years ago

I try to vote for witnesses that are engaged with community for that reason, so they at least hear feedback from actual people who use the Dapps and site. They don't have to agree, but being willing to hear it matters.

$0.00

dragosroua (74) · 5 years ago (edited)

Thanks for the update, it was about time.

I will make a short recap of your post (reflecting, obviously, what I understood from it):

Development resources are safe (paid by Tron from now on)
Communities are priority (we already see they're rolled out)
The partnership gives hope.

Not very reassuring, but at least not catastrophic.

Since I don't see any mentions of SMT, I take it that this is not a priority anymore. Probably a new path, involving TRON tokens, will be approached.

I also don't see, as @netuoso stated, nothing about a specific governance commitment, apart from written promises. These might be useful, to a certain extent - I don't dismiss them entirely, on the contrary, thank you for them - but, as both the Steemit Inc. team and the STEEM community know, blocks can't be signed with written promises. It takes a lot more than that, from cryptographic signatures embedded in a specific software, deployed on machines linked in a network, all this supported with time, money and skills. You can also read the last part simply by saying out loud "witnesses".

Without witnesses, there wouldn't have been any strategic partnership. Without content contributors and curators, there wouldn't have been any strategic partnership.

I'm not feeling taken out from the game, but I certainly, as witness, don't feel like I'm a part of it anymore. On the contrary, seems like the entire concept of STEEM witnesses is quite weakened by this "strategic move".

Would appreciate any answer you have to these concerns.

(upvoted for visibility)

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

I am still stuck on Suns choice of imagery on Twitter. When you play Jenga, the tower eventually falls down and scatters all the blocks. It may be nothing or it may be a warning to us that he has the power to knock down all the blocks if he doesn't get his way. Or maybe it's his way of showing dominance that he's already toppled us?

Also, many people have "promised" many things and have gone back on their words. So how can we even "trust" anything you write or say? And, what has been written or said so far about the acquisition is generic and clear as mud at best. You are simply placating Steemians to buy more time.

I think you should create a smart contract that pays all STEEM holders every time you lie, go back on a promise or misrepresent timelines. This way we don't have to trust you. So each time we get screwed we at least get paid!

I feel sorry for the Steemit Inc employees that were fired due to Ned's incompetence and ego. His ego made him deaf to all suggestions from the STEEM community. Hopefully this time around you will listen to the Witnesses, Developers and STEEM community at large. We have so much talent on this Blockchain but egos need to be put in check. Had he listened, maybe Steemit Inc would have been in a position to make Tron obsolete. But instead, you must Bend the Knee.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

I agree. I am not sure if we can trust them.

$0.00

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

only trust a Smart Contract

$0.00

https://steempeak.com/tron/@anthonyadavisii/that-s-not-a-good-look-justin-word-2-my-naysayer-s

anthonyadavisii (70) · 5 years ago

Yeah, I'm just gonna leave this here. I just hope that he won't be using his stake on Steem like he does with TRX. Call me Elmer FUD but this doesn't exaclty install with confidence.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

I didn't know there was a Tron community. How is it doing? If it is not doing well, then we should be talking about that on the assumption that this boat could sink as well.

$0.00

alexvanaken (66) · 5 years ago

Thanks for selling out to the biggest clown in the crypto space

mysearchisover (70) · 5 years ago

Is Steem going to be phased out?

$0.03

geekgirl (72) · 5 years ago

What about SMTs? Are they still happening?

$0.02

deanliu (77) · 5 years ago

I assume that you knew that Sun said yes in AMA.

BTW, maybe you can get people pass the Steem Torch to Sun and see how it goes.

$0.20

droida (59) · 5 years ago

I fear that it will turn it off.

$0.00

city-of-dresden (65) · 5 years ago

exactly my question. I also miss the SMTs here, given that we are waiting for quite some time for them.

$0.17

madalchemist (52) · 5 years ago

$0.00

stealthtrader (67) · 5 years ago

Will there be any changes or benefits for Steem Power hodlers??

$0.00

droida (59) · 5 years ago (edited)

It seems that the benefits will be for Tron holders only.

$0.00

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

That's definitely how it appears so far. I want to believe, but the information released has been so sketchy and contradictory that I don't trust Justin in the slightest.

$0.00

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 5 years ago

Should we all run off to Weku or Bear Shares or what can we do if all of these things are true or worse?

$0.00

namiks (64) · 5 years ago

The general notion is that we'd fork in the event that Justin gets a bit too direct with his plans.

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

drakos (70) · 5 years ago

Still doesn't say much about what's going to happen concretely.

Meanwhile:

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

I thought there was some new app or website release this week? What is it? Or did i miss that announcement?

$0.00

fredrikaa (70) · 5 years ago

What Sun mentioned during the AMA was Communities, which is currently on beta.steemit.com. It seems it may be 2 weeks, aka next week, that it'll most likely go live.

$0.24

wehmoen (68) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

khaleelkazi (75) · 5 years ago

Justin Sun was referring to the release of beta.steemit into production as the “new release”

Posted via Steemleo

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

Yeah i just saw it, and how it shows blacklists listed in red right by my username and homepage. So i’m done with this for good! Very bad devs here! Whatever i’m out! Good luck!!

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

well you could always try https://beta.steempeak.com/ there are no red blacklisted numbers besides your name there :D

you did something that smartsteem was not happy about, and from what i understand there are few lists of spamers, and other types of steem abusers. as i don't know you, and can't tell what was that about, i can't tell if they are right or not, maybe it is just a misunderstanding, or maybe you did something shity i have no idea :)

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

I didn’t do anything in particular, just a leftover blacklist from a long time ago. I asked them to take it off , if they don’t I don’t want to blog here. cya thanks!

$0.00

mmmmkkkk311 (63) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

whatever it’s been off and i will turn it back on! idk ! i will stay to flag people idk! Can’t scare me out!

$0.00

drutter (69) · 5 years ago

So now you're being properly paid, you're back to work?

$0.00

phgnomo (64) · 5 years ago (edited)

The Steemit Team is Safe

That's cool, and good for these guys that held on with the community.

But when will the main question be answered:

Is the steem blockchain safe?

Is there a swap or not? Will everything move to Tron and the support on the blockchain will cease?

Please, enlighten the community.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

Once the two teams are able to come to a consensus on the roadmap, that information will be shared with the community.

I like seeing the word consensus. Seems good place to start in theory, but concerned about how it plays out in practice.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

Particularly in view of the fact that @justinsunsteemit now holds the stake necessary to control the consensus mechanisms of both Tron and Steem, and has just demonstrated willingness to use that stake contrary to his prior affirmations he would not use it to effect governance of Tron. His affirmation recently he would not use his stake to effect control of governance of Steem seems untrustworthy in view of his actions on Tron.

Thanks!

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

You are right that certain actions and characteristics of him have eroded trust.
The whole point of the blockchain is we shouldn't have to trust anyone. Just the fact that I need to trust him in any capacity makes him suspect.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

The present witness voting system is why his stake necessitates our trust. Stake is able to vote 30x for witnesses. This multiplies the advantage of large stakeholders over lesser by 30x. This why I advocate for 1 Steem = 1 vote for witness, because it eliminates that multiplication of stake weight for witness votes.

Large stakeholders still have more weight to vote with if we change to 1 Steem = 1 Vote, but proportionally to the amount of stake they hold. If the founder's stake, now no longer in the wallet of the founders, is used to control the consensus witnesses, either by @justinsunsteemit contrary to his assertion he would not, or by whomever he sells it to, such as Zuckerborg, or Goolag, under the present rules it would be extremely unlikely the community could focus enough stake to prevent a HF against to their interests.

1 Steem = 1 Vote makes that 30x more likely.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

1 Steem = 1 vote is an interesting idea. However, enough witnesses could still be bought to completely mess with the consensus over and over again until he gets his way so actually I'm against that.

$0.00

valued-customer (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

I reckon the more stake someone possesses, the more they'll be in favor of the status quo. The 75 Million SP the sale of Steemit, Inc. delivered to Tron, when multiplied 30x, is 2.25 Billion as votes for witnesses. With 1 Steem = 1 vote that 75 Million will be 75 Million.

While 75 Million SP is presently enough to install ~1/3 of the top 20, it is not enough to control the consensus. Messing with consensus is far less problematic than possessing it at will.

There's no law that prevents Tron from reselling that stake to Fakebook, Twatter, Goolag, or some other censorship happy institution, and I expect all those institutions would quickly undertake their sole option to exercise total control of the code having total control of the consensus would grant them.

That @justinsunsteemit hasn't done this is proof of his benevolent intent towards Steem IMHO. That @ned sold to Tron instead of one of those other institutions is proof of his as well. But this may not be the end of the matter, and I expect @justinsunsteemit will agree that Steem will be more secure if the 30x increase in power larger stakeholders have over lesser to control the consensus witnesses is removed in favor of equitable distribution.

But who am I?

Edit: there's a reason no stock corporation uses this system, and uses equity as influence instead.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

It makes sense. I imagine first and foremost everyone wants to make money on their investment. I do know he actually bought some of the tech, but the majority of Steem is still free to use and fork or whatever. But I can't even see a fork as a viable option unless he does something really messed up. Too many people would side with him if some decided to fork him out just because Tron and Justin make them sad.

I do think your idea is worth considering in the next hard fork after SMT, especially if the power down time is going to be reduced further. Another idea is to have STEEMIT accounts use the novote feature which would mean they would have to go through a power-down cycle (power down then power up) to cancel that giving everyone enough time to react.

$0.00

maxsieg (53) · 5 years ago (edited)

"Win win" cooperation. interesting choice of words. Chinese foreign ministers love using it for cooperation like putting countries into debt traps to make countries pay back in natural resources and land being used for military bases. Its a double win for China, like "Win Win".

I changed my steemconnect node and my steem interface to reduce my exposure from this change. Currently checking which witnesses are decent. Information of other steem nodes are posted there: @fullnodeupdate

also andrarchy reffered to it as an "Acquisition" rather than a partnership...

$0.00

ragnarokdel (58) · 5 years ago

I'm looking forward to learning about this roadmap because it's been kind of a clusterfuck until now.

$0.00

netuoso (70) · 5 years ago

A very poorly executed acquisition indeed.

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago

Justin Sun please fire these witnesses, they are abusing accounts like me!

$0.00

conradt (67) · 5 years ago

$0.00

felixxx (68) · 5 years ago

Blink twice, if you are being held captive.

$0.00

mmoriarty (40) · 5 years ago

Greate news!
Hope it will be one of the good move to make steemit more stronger!

$0.00

edb (59) · 5 years ago

Shipping communities, improving the user experience on steemit.com, and streamlining the sign up process are our top priorities as we work with the TRON Team to develop a longer term roadmap.

Streamlining the sign-up process should be a top priority indeed. But does this mean that SMTs are cancelled? Are you planning to have Steem apps use TRON tokens?

$0.00

raycoms (70) · 5 years ago

Might be nice if Steemit Inc would tweet this one here to, so that Justin Sun can retweet it.

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Sic semper tyrannus,...

$0.00

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

et tu brute?

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Meh,...

$0.00

epic-fail (59) · 5 years ago

Meh tu Brute ?

$0.00

freebornangel (73) · 5 years ago

Idle threats, empty promises,...

Exile to all who act against the community!

$0.00

bryan-imhoff (66) · 5 years ago

A bit off topic, but some immediate feedback necessary on the beta features rolling over into the live site....

I can’t seem to find a link to my “feed” anywhere. I can manually append /feed into my browser address bar and see it, at which point “my friends” appears in selection menu with my communities, but it does not appear there natively from the front end in any other manner I can find. This is on iOS, Brave browser in case it’s specific.

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

if you click on Steemit logo (think it is home page) and then click on the My friends you will get your feed.

but you can alway try https://beta.steempeak.com/ (should i even do this on steemit post? :) )

bryan-imhoff (66) · 5 years ago

I don’t think anyone minds the SteemPeak plug! They’re friendly rivals! I do need to play around with their beta more. But yeah, the navigation you’re describing used to work on the Steemit beta but has been broken for me for a while. I wasn’t concerned until I see it rolling over into the live site! The “friends” feed does not show up as an option...

Through any means I have tried normally navigating through links...

But it does magically appear when I manually type in my feed address in my browser search bar, which of course negates the purpose of the link! 😆

$0.00

bil.prag (68) · 5 years ago

i just now seen the misunderstanding :D i don't use it on the phone :D

so it is highly possible that it is a bug.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 5 years ago

Good to hear that the SteemIt, Inc. Team is still safe and I am looking forward to hearing the plans when they are more defined.

$0.00

liondani (69) · 5 years ago

I guess I can't find a reply from Justin because Bernie was lurking here before me

$0.00

sumit1998 (66) · 5 years ago

In new website how do I check the posts by person whom do I follow. I think there is no option for that pls explain.

$0.00

https://steemit.com/@sumit1998/feed

bryan-imhoff (66) · 5 years ago

Appears to be a glitch in navigation, I commented about it as well. For now you can manually go to your feed by adding /feed to your profile address.

$0.00

eirik (69) · 5 years ago

Pretty entertaining!

$0.00

lallo (60) · 5 years ago

So beta.steemit is not more beta?

$0.00

coinchaos (63) · 5 years ago

$0.00

mcoinz79 (70) · 5 years ago

$0.00

pegarissimo (59) · 5 years ago

Thank you! It's clear now and I think it's great news.

$0.00

droida (59) · 5 years ago (edited)

What will Steem Classic be worth if Steem is a Tron token?
Steem should stay Steem cause Steem Tron will be used mainly for gambling and speculating.
What to do? Let's vote https://dpoll.io/detail/@droida/should-we-fork-sun-out/

$0.00

harsh2308 (9) · 5 years ago

steemit is a best site any query related to steemit pls contact me

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

animica (50) · 5 years ago

Sooo
Will steemit keep it's name and will it keep using steem coin or switch to tron?

$0.00

mattclarke (68) · 5 years ago

Haven't heard from the @elipowell account in a while. Is she still with us?

$0.00

elipowell (59) · 5 years ago

Yes! Still here, just super busy with all things...

$0.38

detlev (73) · 5 years ago

Hi @elipowell as I hear in so many posts, the community love to get a clear message of what's happen to:

a.) the Steem token

b.) the witness activities from TRON/Steemit

c.) the voting power from Tron/Steemit

Love to get your answer as many people are confused!
Greeting from Europe
@detlev

$0.02

joythewanderer (78) · 5 years ago

don't think she'd answer that before steemit.com makes any official announcement

$0.00

detlev (73) · 5 years ago

At least I asked....

$0.02

sepracore (62) · 5 years ago

I only use my phone to interact with steem. It looks like there is not a feed button on my phone for communities. I have to manually go to my /feed domain to get there. It would be helpful to have a feed button to get there. Just a thought. 😁 I might have missed it.

$0.00

freddio (61) · 5 years ago

i really like the updates in Steemit.com.

Really nice :)

$0.00

demo.com (25) · 5 years ago

Thanks for update, will check what Tron is up to...

$0.00

geekpowered (69) · 5 years ago

Well, I have to say the Steemit main page is much improved.
But you should do some tweaks to the posting page. Some improvements to the editor to be more in line with other sites, plus a widget to insert some open source images would be killer.
Everyone on Steemit is posting them, so it shouldn't be that difficult to scrape the common sites and automatically credit the image authors.

$0.00

atyh (72) · 5 years ago

don't want Steem bought by a China guy

$0.00

stuffbyspencer (61) · 5 years ago

While I appreciate the post, and I'm definitely hoping for more open communication, I'd also like to hear specifics.

Here's hoping that this roadmap will finally put some clear answers into place as to what the fuck is happening :^)

$0.00

themanualbot (70) · 5 years ago

Once the two teams are able to come to a consensus on the roadmap, that information will be shared with the community.

Two teams on a consensus matter, but how about steem witnesses? Do their voice matters too?

$0.00

linksman (53) · 5 years ago

Currently, steem and steem dollars are worth more than the Tron token in the crypto market. So, when you talk about a win-win situation, I ask a win-win for who?????
You guys better wake up and smell the stench in the air!!!!!

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

actifit-peter (69) · 5 years ago

Your statement sounds good and promising! I am looking forward to all the positive changes ahead of us! Thanks for the information.

$0.00

yonilkar (64) · 5 years ago (edited)

In Steem we trust

$0.00

sergiomendes (74) · 5 years ago

Let's see where it will head. We only can try and be positive rn

$0.00

bluengel (76) · 5 years ago

Steem ♨ On !
♨♨♨

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

will94 (25) · 5 years ago

Awesome! This is fantastic news. It is so good to see these prominent projects (two of my person favourites by the way) coming together in order to achieve the greater good, especially when it is companies with the significance of these two firms. It never ceases to amaze me that that in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies those involved are dedicated to working together to make great projects as opposed to always trying to better one another. I think it is definitely something unique about this industry and it is part of the reason I am such a passionate believer in the future of crypto-assets and the technology that surrounds it as it seems that together the community are so focused on making it works. I would love to see more projects like this in the future. I wonder if anyone else reading this could like to share with me some projects they would like to see work together? I mean, of course, there many already but who else would do you think would make a great team? Let me know :D

$0.00

udabeu (70) · 5 years ago

Hey YOU, please keep as transparent as you can.
Let us feel you are honest.
And please please leak every shit to happen early.
Will you ?

$0.00