I don’t think admitting will solve anything for the community.
Thinking about a solution will. Implementing or testing a solution even more.
Voting for the witnesses that provided the workable solution too.
Right now we have something like between temporary and special situation where trust for the previous top20 witnesses is greater than what justin fake accounts are doing. But after the somewhat awkward situation is solved, we have room again for discussion I would say.
Myself, I learned a lot with this... and I am now of the position that accounts should only be able to vote for a maximum 4 witnesses.
Why?
It will avoid the attack Justin did, it will still allow for the top20 domination to be cancelled (you only need 4 nodes different to cancel HFs). Will be way less difficult for everyone to vote...
For now this would change lots. And as any other experiments, we shouldn’t do many changes before verifying it works as we wish.
But I have a couple of other ideas that sometimes I share with witnesses.
Thinking about a solution will. Implementing or testing a solution even more.
Agree. But the first step on that is witnessess recognizing their mistakes. There is a lot of talk about trust these day, so would you trust them if they don't take their part of the blame?
The focus should indeed to solve the crisis, but be watchful of how each witnessess is behaving at the time.
Those that acknowledge that at the end of the day, it was their fault that all this happened because they didn't paid proper attention to the chain safety, well... i can't trust them anymore.
Trusting on people that admit stuff can be as much deceiving as the other way around.
Admitting or not, can help or not the community, depending on what actions come after that. As any other STEEMian, being watchful is advisable (as much as you can), I have seen much admitting sometimes.. but then nothing get's done, and that's not useful too.
Being a witness is not just about trust unfortunately. They almost need to be "gods" these days, in order to keep their positions, talking care of any sorts of "obstacles" that flow within the community, sometimes even fraudulent with vengeance principles. I know no one is perfect or that they are not all "angels"... but from the perspective of going forward, what I least expect is for them to keep "admitting" whatever they do wrong.
Would much prefer that instead of admitting the previous code did not handle some kind of governance impeccably with 0% flaws (which is kind of going to the extreme here, but let's consider it), that they instead proposed new code changes already tested on the testnet and how would those changes improve the current problems found on governance. And then get this ASAP into the plans... so that people can start looking that "things are being planned, and eventually done".
I don't want to go that deep on that conversation now because currently things are not normal. The governance is somehow "challenged" by not cooperating parties and until that gets properly dealt with, the things I mentioned above can't flow as fast.
But once they do, then it would be something giving me motivation to buy even more STEEM. And don't get me wrong, I still understand that many changes are in reality experiments. That's why things need to be tested and we should also have more agility into the pipeline of development of STEEM, which by itself it's another whole conversation/topic. Most people that develops on STEEM never get a return for their time spent at least... if you have to compare with real life jobs I mean. It's usually a very long term investment, in average if not way above it, I am guessing.
You nailed it.