Softfork 0.22.2: why I didn&#x27;t apply the changes to my witness node.

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

But it is against my belief and values to tamper with someone else account and assets.

With the same logic, would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds? Source

From a purely idealistic PoV, I can understand your stance. But the real world simply isn't idealistic.

There is a big difference between:

stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem
and every other account.

With your logic, ever since HF9, people could have lost trust in Witnesses controlling the stake, but thinking that would be absurd.

Same goes for the SF 222. It was a highly targeted security measure, to make sure that those funds, promised to be used for Steem, are also going to be used that way. Just because Ned sold his company, those social contracts are NOT simply nullified.

People invested time & money on here, based on those promises given. And, we, the stakeholders that are voting for the SF 222, are now demanding that those promised funds are not just going away, potentially harming the whole ecosystem; but are going to be used for Steem - however that may look like.

Also, most STEEM that was sold, was actually from those early days, which is also a reason why the STEEM price tanked harder than most others. Empty promises & hard sells from the company who created the software.

Anyway, I respect your stance, but I disagree with it.

$0.21

4 votes

quochuy (72) · 5 years ago

Thanks for your reaction, I appreciate.

I don't think the HF9 case is comparable, it was an actual theft. With the SiNMS, it was an unfair acquisition during genesis, a time where no one really cared about it and then it went on "accepted" during 4 years. By accepted, I mean no one made a SF/HF against it. But maybe there are things I don't fully understand yet due to joining the platform more recently.

I do think that dealing with the SiNMS is a good thing for the platform but I guess it's about timing and I'm looking forward finding a better way to handle it.

$0.18

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds?

stolen != purchased

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

This isn't about Justin Sun buying the stake. This is about Steemit Inc upholding their social contracts.

$0.00

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

This is about the purchase... because you guys are effectively holding his stake hostage until you enforce your contract.

Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.

You can't negotiate, if you've got no leverage. Steemit Inc has (and always had) enough stake to vote in their our witnesses (30 accounts on 1 server even) and give everyone a big F. All of this should have been done earlier obviously, enforce it by code so the centralised stake can't be maliciously abused, but people had trust in Ned - mistakenly.

Due to the SF, we've got leverage now. There are always extremists on both sides, but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive.

However, we will not accept for Steem to be eaten up by anybody, as if we were in agar.io. You might call this FUD, I call it realistic risk assessment.

$0.00

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive

We'll have to see how that goes now.

Personally I have no bias if Steem and Tron each go their way or if they will collaborate closely. I see enough supporters of both scenarios, but what I don't like a bit is the precedent you have set and messing with property, regardless of its history. So yeah, when it comes to property I guess I'm an extremist.

$0.00

borislavzlatanov (54) · 5 years ago

What about seeing the stake as the community's property?

I'm not arguing one way or the other. But the ninja-mined stake is worth anything at all due to the community's efforts. Should it not be considered the community's property then?

$0.00

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago

It could have been seen that way and done something about it before it was sold, in my opinion.

Of course, some would argue it's still community's property, and if Sun doesn't like it, he should go to Ned and ask for his money back.

But here's when written contracts are more powerful than "understandings". Do you think he will do that? Should he do that? Do we want him to do that?

Or we just wanted him at the table in a negotiation where he will say anything we want to hear in order to see his stake released?

$0.00

Show 2 more replies

teamsteem (74) · 5 years ago

It should have been done earlier indeed. I didn't even realized it could done with a softfork before seing 22.2.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

So with your logic:

If you lend me money, with the expectation to be paid back later, but I simply give it away, then I'm good, because you could have demanded to be paid back earlier.

Nice loophole you found there, buddy.

$0.00

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

Not a loophole.

The new owner has paid for the acquisition. Do we have a problem? That needs to be resolved with Ned. Too bad he's not around to keep hostage anymore.

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Best of luck in your life with that logic.

$0.00

skramatters (66) · 5 years ago

I am not taking sides only pointing out that Justin can simply run his own version with his stake intact. It's up to everyone here which version of steem has value.. I'm not a fan of our consensus witnesses and think they act very unprofessional and can't hack it anywhere else in the world of business so I'm more than open to supporting what may be a scumbag that can actually create something valuable with the tech..

Our steem team has floundered, whined, and can't see the forest for the trees.. Why even bother having a conversation with wolf he is like the most duplicitous politically motivated ass clown on steem.

$0.00

gadrian (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

God, I'm really trying to move on from the subject! 😄

My opinion hasn't changed regarding property and the unnecessary use of force, although I see many attempts to make it right-er (as in justifiable) post factum.

Hopefully it all plays out well.

$0.00

skramatters (66) · 5 years ago

Time will tell, in the meantime it's nice to see others at least questioning the council of freedom and their less than admirable track record.. Mr. Wolf muted me long ago as I was quite vocal in my opposition of his rise to power.. It went against our collective botter judgement.. 🤖 Have to wonder what possessed such an almighty force to mute lil ol having an opinion me.. Wanker

$0.00

travelwithus (73) · 5 years ago

"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"

Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?

$0.00

therealwolf (75) · 5 years ago

There are many different instances where the social contract of using the stake for Steem was defined.

For example, in the 2017 Roadmap (https://steem.com/2017roadmap.pdf)

Decentralizing Stake
The Steemit, Inc.-controlled primary account, @steemit, which holds approximately 41% of the platform’s Steem Power, will be gradually divested of its holdings in an effort to increase promotion and development of the platform, and this distribution shall further the platform’s security through decentralization of voting power.

Several methods will be employed, including and not limited to: funding the continued research and development of steemit.com, the Steem Blockchain’s first and best application, promoting and publicizing the Steem Blockchain and features, hosting highly available services for platform users, sponsoring conferences and community gatherings, and sponsoring undertakings to build applications and increase user adoption across the entire ecosystem.

This will likely be a multi-year process, but is included in this 2017 Roadmap for the sake of clarity and understanding surrounding our organization’s plans and goals. We have several very large initiatives currently in research serving this goal, and the community should expect further announcements later in the year regarding our firm plans as it yields fruit.

Ultimately, the goal is to harmoniously align the interests of all participants across the entire spectrum of people using and trading in STEEM.

Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:

$0.00

jamesbrown (62) · 5 years ago (edited)

As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?

And that justifies sucking all the power away from the new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract", correct?

The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover from the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?

$0.00

skramatters (66) · 5 years ago

That ship sailed long ago my friends

$0.00

klye (73) · 5 years ago

Good post man. I respect your stance on this.

$0.02

quochuy (72) · 5 years ago

Thanks. I hope we all come up with an ideal solution.

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

lukestokes (75) · 5 years ago

However, there are potential risk that backup Witnesses are being pushed upwards towards the Top20 position, effectively rendering the Softfork useless.

Can you explain what you mean here? As long as the majority of witnesses support it (or don't), the longest chain will win. Micro forks may happen, but the longest chain will win which will exclude (or include) a transaction that is currently being blocked based on the majority of the elected witnesses. That's my understanding today, anyway.

I'm curious, do you think the Townhall meeting would have happened if the witnesses had done nothing?

$0.00

quochuy (72) · 5 years ago

What I was thinking is that non-SF backup witnesses could be somehow pushed up to the top 20.

As for the Townhall, we haven’t tried to make it or a similar meeting happen before deciding on the SF have we? We could have all compiled the SF, request for a friendly meeting and stand ready for activation. And by request I mean an en masse campaign to reach out to Justin on major platforms he is on. The SF surely did make it happen fast

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

cryptogee (75) · 5 years ago

Well done. I'm waiting to see what witnesses support this, and I'll remove my vote from them and transfer it to ones that don't.

$0.00

novacadian (58) · 5 years ago

You have my continued support, @quochuy. All witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. They have broken the trust of the chain in my opinion.

The existential threat is not gone. A billionaire can still buy a majority stake on the exchanges. What was/is needed is a solution that will affect all accounts and not targeted ones.

Some ideas have been put out there in some of my comments on the subject.

Why Now?

Because this is the first time that STEEM Witnesses, themselves, are threatened. If this BS narrative of protecting the chain were true then something would have been done when @ned was still with us.

We are seeing Jonny come lately self interests in action, not solutions.

$0.00

skramatters (66) · 5 years ago

I think I might actually be in agreement with you. I'm happy to see people questioning our consensus witnesses that were hand selected by an "anonymous" central controlling non participating in any other capacities stakeholder ... I'm fine with flushing these turds for a new bathroom..

$0.02

mahdiyari (67) · 5 years ago

We don't have any problem with Justin's stake, the problem is with Ned's stake. Ned sold stake that is not supposed to be sold.
Justin should solve the problem with Ned.

$0.00

suonghuynh (49) · 5 years ago

Well said!

$0.00

enginewitty (72) · 5 years ago

You and I think a lot alike. Great write up and analysis.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

Philosophically and spiritually I agree, but technically and practically, I do not.
I still support you and am glad to hear your point of view.
In my opinion if Justin bought 70 million Steem on the open market, we would all be stinking up our pants now as he would have the full ability and moral authority to do as he pleases (I'm sure a lot of people would have dumped at the price spike).
Also, if Mr. Ned was to sell 70 million Steem on the open market, the price would crash and we would just be really, really sad. The torch was sold/passed to a more interesting and seemingly capable person. I think he is a bit of a wise guy in the mafia sense, but I'm glad the witnesses won't kindly bend over and are also dealing with this is a mafia manner.
Justin played the first hand like an asshole new boss. Now he is being shown who is boss. He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.

$0.00

5 votes

jamesbrown (62) · 5 years ago (edited)

He isn't Steem's owner. He is Steemit's owner. Until he understands this and is willing to act accordingly, we won't let him play with his toys in our playground.

...okay, but Steemit has a Steem holding and that, presumably, is now HIS Steem holding. That's what he bought, what he forked (no pun intended) real cash over for. And because the amount that he now controls doesn't sit well with those who make a decent earning churning out new Steem as a top 20 witness, they've decided to delete the power away from his holdings to ensure that they maintain that position.

This is akin to taking all the shareholder rights away from the top holder in a publicly traded company, rendering him/ her powerless in company decisions. The problem with that scenario is that those rights are a contractual/ legal obligation between the company and shareholder as a percent ownership, dictated by number of shares held in said company.

The question is: does this apply to ownership of the Steem blockchain as a percent ownership of the entire float of Steem, with regards to voting rights?

That, I assume, would be how outsiders perceive the situation to work, regardless of if that is or isn't backed by the law. Which is why I point out that even if this doesn't lead to lawsuits, it will likely ruin Steem's image (assuming it can be ruined more than it already has been) to any potential future speculators/ investors.

$0.00

abitcoinskeptic (73) · 5 years ago

You are thinking of Steem as shareholder equity. Steem is probably not.

His Steem Power was practically nulled, the Steem is still there.

How does converting Steem to Steem Power change cryptocurrency to share holder equity from a legal perspective? It doesn't. Further anyone can buy or earn Steem and convert it to Steem Power without actually agreeing to anything. If I make you an account, there is no TOS. There is definitely no TOS to shitpost.

His ability to convert has been hampered, but he stated himself he has no immediate plans, he also didn't publically ask for anything to be done except a meeting on March 6. I'm sure he consulted lawyers. Maybe he ca wait until then to actually declare some sort of lawsuit. But I doubt he will.

Some of the witnesses are barely known others don't live antwhere that can be brought to US justice. Crypto is barely regulated.

A lawsuit would be an expensive mess that would destroy the value of Steem. It makes no sense and serves the interest of neither party and any competent judge would recognize this.

$0.00

skramatters (66) · 5 years ago

Hear hear

$0.00

coininstant (66) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

3 votes

bagofincome (53) · 5 years ago

It's interesting to watch the latest developments.

On his blog, BOI has wrote the first part about Steem blockchain and Steemit. In the second part, BOI will talk about Justin buying Steemit.Inc and all it's repercussions.

BOI would appreciate some feedback on the first part.

Thank you and have a wonderful day!

$0.00

rynow (71) · 5 years ago

I agree with your sentiment, witnesses should not have the power to block/freeze accounts

$0.00

arcange (73) · 5 years ago (edited)

$0.00

notconvinced (59) · 5 years ago

I support and agree with your decision. I wish there were more free market freedom loving users on Steem.

$0.00

bluerobo (61) · 5 years ago

Succinct description of the current situation.
Well done.

$0.00

witnessnews (2) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

inertia (73) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

Are you REALLY against the softfork ideologically? Question with me for a moment.

I understand where you're coming from, because we're both likely from the early days of Bitcoin.

The philosophical issue I'd like to bring up here is this: Which ethic takes precedence?
Non-alteration of accounts, or adherence to decentralization, anti-censorship, and will of the community?

In this situation, we will have greater freedom as a net total if we lock or banish the SiNMS versus than if we allow this sale. I often favor anarcho-capitalistic ideals, but it can only go so far. At a certain point, we have to be people who are free to fight for our future, instead of machines running immutable code.

Please question your values. My initial view of this situation changed when I remembered my humanity.

$0.00

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

instead of machines running immutable code

Are you telling us that we should rely on Human Nature instead of codes that have no emotions and won't bury people alive just because of greed and gluttony? I think it is more human to protect people against it by writing proper codes.

You can't be anarcho-capitalistic then mention the word our which reflects a social contract.

The code is there to level the field for fair competition, not to execute the emotional outcomes of someone who hasn't had his morning coffee.

And just one thing:

Non-alteration of accounts = Adherence to decentralization and anti-censorship.

You can't just split those concepts.

$0.00

5 votes

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

I'm not anarcho-capitalist. I'm just a light sympathizer.

I do not believe in ideologies.

As for code and nature, what makes you think the SiNMS is code, and not a result of greed? The existence of the SiNMS has always been wrong. It should have been wiped the moment it was discovered, or better: It should never have existed.

The witnesses were too passive. But it's not too late. Every Steem that was ninja-mined should be banished to @null.

If you disagree, then vote that way. Or better: Question your ethics.

$0.00

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

Everything that is happening here is a reflection of the Steem Blockchain code.

We need to make a difference between everyone who ninja mined (including many current TOP 20 witnesse - Hypocrisy intensified), an investor who bought a large amount of stack, and anyone who benefited from the status quo then was suddenly enlighted when he realized that his position is threatened.

But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the shareholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?

Ethics don't have a place here since we all come from different cultures, hence why the filed should be leveled for fair play.

Apart from a small bump in price. There is no difference between Tron buying the stake from the market or STINC.

$0.00

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

Ethics do have a place here, but which ethics we uphold?
Well, that's why we hope our vote counts.

If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.

Do you write code? It's incredibly troublesome to write good code, and even more troublesome to write ethical code. From my perspective, considering we are living in an age beyond the first years of Bitcoin, I think ninja-mining can only be done deliberately: And if it was, we should never have joined Steem.

But this is the home of my entire writing portfolio, it's up to me to defend my home. Is this your home too?

$0.00

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago

You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.

I remember discussing before the idea of how people can store images of underage pornography as text (then convert it using simple tooling) on the chain and how the witnesses should deal with it. Some said that they should fork out the accounts, others said this should not be done because it endangers the integrity of the chain.

People can believe in different ideas, hence they will support different things. But people can agree on the rules of the game, same as in football, and anyone who wants to take part in the game should in priory agree on its rules first.

If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.

This is the right path, to make changes that will make it extremely hard for anyone even with a large stake to play God. Many examples were presented that can be implemented to definitely solve the problem, and this should be the case right now. To make the proper changes and push for an HF along with the unfreeze of Tron stake.

Problem is, not everyone likes this idea since right now, many are at the top only because of Pumpkin.

$0.00

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.

I disagree. But we will see what happens.

Neither of us are in a position to write code or buy mass-amounts of steem, so what game do we play?

It'd be nice to play football with rules we've made, but what about the pig from whom the ball is made?

I don't think that ethics are as simple as right or wrong, or 0 or 1.

$0.00

Show 1 more reply

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the stakeholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?

The statement against it is what I've written: I only stand for myself here.

But let me get into details: If it was smaller, and not able to override all community-voted for witnesses, it would be less of an issue.
If it was truly used only for financing development, it would be less of an issue. There is no evidence that Satoshi has a bitcoin wallet, and if he did have 50, 100, even 1000 BTC, it would be less of a moral issue, considering it was the first coin, and he had no way of knowing if it was going to be worth a lot, or nothing.

You could have bought hundreds of BTC for a dollar back in those days, so if he had a large number of bitcoins, it doesn't exactly matter considering it was the first.

Beyond that, we must ask: Did Ned have the right to sell that Steem?
No. It was meant to be used for a specific purpose. Ned did not consult either the witnesses, nor the users. He simply made a decision which impacts many different people, and in my opinion, the decision he made was so incredibly bad that I will stand against it. Join me.

These are human answers. Not machine answers. They are opinion based, and therefore, superior to a machine answer.

When machines have opinions, I will trust them more.
Until then, I can only trust their developers, owners, and users. And if what the developers or users or owners have done is not right: Then it is up to me to right what is wrong.

And it is up to you as well.

And if we cannot agree, then we must simply go to war.

$0.00

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago (edited)

A contract that is solely on based "trust" is worthless. People are unpredictable and can change without giving an indicator.

I think the notion of machines doesn't play a role here because the code executes a set of rules written by a human after reaching a certain level of consensus.

Ned did many things wrong and witnesses too. But I can't understand the difference between:

Ned selling steem to one person.
Or that one person buying the same amount of steem from the market.
Or Ned selling Steem on the market then that person buys that steem from the market.
Or Ned selling that same amount to different people in the market.

(Witnesse did nothing when STINC was actually heavily selling STEEM)

Freezing those accounts is a political decision that hides a much worse and deeper history of incompetence, greed, lack of professionalism and accountability. Everyone is to blame here.

$0.00

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

I do agree that the witnesses didn't do enough.
And you may be right about that aspect entirely, including the voting mechanism itself.

However, I think you need to see the differences in the different things you listed, considering that the differences do exist, and you took note of them just now.

It cannot be denied that the decisions, and the order of decisions, a human makes are different.

If a human wishes to have dinner, it does make a difference whether or not the animal is cooked first, or still living, when the dining begins, even if the end result is the same.

What I mean is that there are ethical ways to do things. There are ethical ways to sort different types of censorship. There are ethical order of operations that make sense on the context.

Machines in their current form do not see context, and you are ignoring context too when you see no difference between different things.

The numbers all add up to the same: Ned will sell all of his Steem.

But what matters is to whom, and why, and what happens next.

$0.00

enginewitty (72) · 5 years ago

Just wrote a post on the burn. Agreed, it should have been dealt with years ago.

$0.00

quochuy (72) · 5 years ago

Yes it was 12M.

Posted using Partiko iOS

$0.00

inertia (73) · 5 years ago

I currently estimate that the change was an additional 800k SP in favor of @timcliff. Of course, he lost a lot more than he gained, but that's not what I'm interested in for assessing this.

$0.00

quochuy (72) · 5 years ago

Shouldn't there be a couple of proposals to assess it?

$0.00

wakeupkitty (75) · 5 years ago

$0.00

Reveal Comment

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago

Don't look at the price, look at the market cap. Tron is at 1,1 Billion "USD" now. Steem is only 63 million "USD" which is like nothing compared to Tron. (https://coinmarketcap.com/)

I believe things were not 100/100 clear concerning the swap. I agree with the OP on the idea that no one should have the right to nullify your token. Imagine buying 20 million USD worth of Steem for example, then the witnesses decide to freeze your stake (token you bought) because they don't like you. The blockchain is supposed to protect people against such things, that's why we run away from banks.

The funny thing is that we were telling those same witnesses to change the voting mechanism for witnesses for ages (so no one can control the top 20 spots), but they didn't want to because they liked it when Steemit Inc was doing all the development, but now that a big investor has bought a lot of steem, they froze his stake (lazy ass solution) in fear that they might lose their places.

$0.00

4 votes

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

The difference here is that banks are singular entities and the witnesses are people we vote for.

Another issue is that Justin with the SiNMS has the power to become a singular entity with the power to freeze accounts or alter the blockchain. His plan is to destroy it and reopen it on his Tron blockchain.

If witnesses aren't doing what we want, we can always have campaigns to replace them.

But we cannot easily replace Justin. He bought his way into power.

$0.00

dr-frankenstein (67) · 5 years ago

We vote for is a bit pretty, let's look at the reality and see who control such decisions.

Witness are voting on each other on top of a handful of what who are making sure that some people will stay at the top forever, without mentioning the SPS were only 2 accounts are choosing who gets what.

TOP 20 spots are like a bank that has 20 shareholders. It's the same thing. Anyone wants to stay in to get more juice and influence, so they usually "circle jerk" each another to stay at the top.

Easy, the witnesses who do not agree on the thing, they can choose to fork their way out. If it's not STINc, it can be another random investor who decided that he want more influence on the chain and want to change things according to his taste, is this wrong? No, because this is a DPOS, where only people who have the biggest stake are the ones who can make changes.

You can't get to the top 20 by posting good content and getting 30 steem each day. People get there by making hidden alliances and buying a large amount of stake.

$0.00

heretickitten (64) · 5 years ago

Yeah, and I don't think we disagree completely.

My only argument in this situation is that the ninja-mined Steem simply should not exist.

$0.00