— SteemCN

irgendwo (63) · 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure no person put you on a blacklist... the IF THEN mechanism

Does it mean that nobody had the time to review the list? Lame excuse. Blame it on the IF THEN mechanism and the world keeps spinning. How about to make contact with the accounts on the list and ask what where going on? No?

$0.00

lukestokes (75) · 5 years ago

There was very little time to review it. I saw the list yesterday afternoon and explained why I think it was the wrong approach. Unfortunately there was not enough time for larger discussion as the code had to be finalized, tested, and distributed to exchanges so they can support the airdrop.

It's an unfortunate situation we have to work through as best we can. I'm hopeful the proposal system will work to include members of the community in the Hive airdrop who token holders agree should be included and do not have an intent to centralize the chain.

$0.40

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

The list was not made by a person. It was made by deciding on criteria (supporting centralizing the chain) and then running a script. No one went through the resulting list and decided to add or remove subjectively.

There will be an opportunity for appeal on the Hive blockchain using its equivalent of SPS. Corresponding tokens have been reserved in the DAO account for this.

$0.15

jarvie (70) · 5 years ago

Don't you think that's how it should be with no favorites being played? If he had been tipped off prior to infraction instead of someone else it would have been way more problematic don't you think?

$0.03

funtraveller (71) · 5 years ago

I'm included to the list, I didn't receive any notice or warning about it. Nobody reach out.

And I didn't expect to be included since I condemn "centralization", I happened to follow a proxy.

It seems that they don't bother to review what the code decides for this "Hive blacklist", the Hive team are group of devs and it's their job to put up the codes for Hive, but it looks like they didn't appoint anyone to review the blacklist.

I feel bad for myself but I feel worse for @steemchiller considering his effort for the community.

$0.00

lukestokes (75) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

urdreamscometrue (57) · 5 years ago

yeah somebody set the rules for the if then mechanism...

and this dude put him on the blacklist...

The if then mechanism is about picking lel. Same as select from where and every other mechanism where you set parameters which filters data.

This was dumb decision.

He is totally right with every word he is saying.

Maybe because I took part in de-escalating the situation and therefore voted for both sides

This is how a "real witness" should have handled.

$0.00

lukestokes (75) · 5 years ago

I respectfully disagree in that voting for accounts actively sybil attacking the chain dramatically decreases the security of the chain as far as DPoS is designed. Witnesses who understand this should not support sock puppets.

That said, I don't agree with how this was decided. I tried to change minds and said it would be a black spot on the beginning of this chain. Unfortunately I was unable to convince those involved to take a different approach and just focus on the Steemit ninja-mined stake.

$0.00

moeknows (60) · 5 years ago

This is how a "real witness" should have handled

I disagree. It was part of an attack. I think @steemchiller is the model of what a Steemian should be, but actively supporting such an attack goes a step beyond saying that he was in the right to do so. What he should have done (if he didn't support centralization) is to vote for witnesses whom he believed in, even if it excluded all of the top witnesses who supported the softfork. I could even see voting for a single sock, but not 4.

That being said, mistakes are made and if anyone deserves latitude, I think Steemchiller does. He is upstanding and moral.

$0.00

urdreamscometrue (57) · 5 years ago

A witness should do the best for the community and this is NOT working against justinsun.

A compromise and more good communication would have been the right way.

The Problem with the ninja mine stack should have been resolved through discussions.

Sun is a big investor with a valuable network and this is something steem needs, a witness should have tried everything to generate added value out of this partnership instead of doing aggressive forks without communication.

this wasnt done.

PS: with 4 witnesses in the top positions you can not decide by your one, so their was a chance of kickstarting communication between sun and community witnesses.

Of course i understand your points, but the goal of a witness should be to give us steemians (their voters) the best results in form of steem as a product for users and steem as an investor. This goes by partnerships and onboarding new users due to marketing and an technological outstanding product, which needs money which for example sun has.

$0.00

moeknows (60) · 5 years ago

I agree, but I do feel they made a lot of attempts to contact them before the soft fork. And even after. They didn't without any connection. They announced it was temporary and expressed the desire to communicate. Before the softfork, the only communications coming from the tron side were that a token swap was going to happen on a timeline, and if the swap wasn't done, that your Steem would "turn into nothing". There was also the deal with Justin using tron Genesis tokens in voting which he wasn't supposed to do.

So with all that going in and the combination of no other communication, I can understand why they took that action. I may feel they went a little too far by implementing a total freeze, but that was also mitigated somewhat by the public declaration of it being temporary.

From that point, it went downhill.

$0.00

flugschwein (60) · 5 years ago (edited)

But there was someone who wrote that IF THEN mechanism who is responsible for that. Seeing that @steemchiller and others are one the list proves that this IF THEN mechanism is not good. I deem it obvious that a @steemchiller doesn't have his place in that list. The author of the mechanism should've seen that and fixed that mechanism.
Edit: I don't want to write redundant comments so I'll do that in an edit. I believe that the rules are not adequately set. If you don't believe that, that's fine. But I also believe that in general you are no better that justin sun if you choose to exclude certain accounts because of their opinion.
Another thing about that list that bugs me is that this only applies to accounts bigger than 1k SP. For one because that is a completely random number. And because this is completely unfair. Should I split up my stake to a few accounts in preparation for the next blacklisting of accounts because then they won't be blacklisted?

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

The criteria were widely supported by those creating the Hive blockchain. THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of the effort was to escape the centralization that destroyed Steem. Including people who actively supported that centralization does not make sense.

That being said, there is an appeal mechanism and if anyone believes that they were unfairly excluded they are free to appeal to the Hive stakeholders to reverse the decision. This could even be done to reverse the entire list for that matter.

I deem it obvious that a @steemchiller doesn't have his place in that list.

I don't think it is obvious at all. He voted for the sock puppets and never removed that vote until after the Hive announcement. You may not have strong views on centralization vs. decentralization but the people who volunteered their effort (an enormous effort at that) to make Hive happen most certainly do have strong views on that. If they didn't Hive would not exist.

$0.02

friendlystranger (56) · 5 years ago

Strange. I don't understand your criteria. I voted for 4 witnesses and only one is running 0.22.5.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 5 years ago (edited)

It's not my criteria, I was reporting what is in the code and I also think it is quite reasonable.

If you feel your account was wrongly included in the list you can appeal to the Hive community for a correction.

$0.00

friendlystranger (56) · 5 years ago

That your hiding behind a community it's a little pathetic. Don't you think. I only have 4 votes. Maybe only one does not meet your criteria. That's not a clean start for you guys.
Shady start once again.

$0.00

transisto (74) · 5 years ago

What do you mean by one again?

$0.00

lordbutterfly (70) · 5 years ago

He has as much of a place as any on the list.

Same rhetoric. Same voting.

The fact that he provides valuable service doesn't give him a pass.

$0.00