No, I don't think it was. Pretty sure they just voted the best way they knew how and as it was written everywhere to vote "the real top 20", they voted the top 20 - not knowing who was real or not.
Yeah, I think this should be done case by case, unless ALL or NONE clearly win.
The way it seems to be happening means we gotta be particularly forgiving or spiteful.
I'd prefer to see a statement from all interested groups.
The decision was made by the large group of people responsible for building the chain you are writing this on. As well as the large group of witnesses who ran the code. There is nothing centralized about it.
The criteria is listed in the post.. it was based on actions the accounts made, not some sort of subjective picking and choosing. Just purely code.
Now it's the second stage - where the community gets comb through it with a human eye and decide what happens.
Thank you for answering. I know you are saying as much as you can and the list is not in the public domain. A large group isn't decentralized. It is just less centralized.
Perhaps I'm now most curious to compare with the people who've been recently frozen on Steem, especially the newer community members on the steem frozen list. Were all these accounts involved in the hive airdrop decision?
I understand the list was based on code and actions of the affected accounts. However that code was made by and approved by humans who subjectively picked and chose the variables and constants, and decided to execute the code. It wasn't some AI or devine decision.
I'm curious about the next step. Why can we not choose case by case and consider others to add or changes to the original code used to punish those who may have 'accidentally not voted' for sock puppets, etc.
It’s not that there is a private list of those involved, it’s just it’s a group of 100+ people who included most Steem witnesses (not just top 20), devs, some community members etc that was involved in the Hive launch.
And a large group made up of representatives that the community votes for is the exact way the DPOS platform works and the definition of decentralization.
No, not all accounts that have now been frozen on the Steem chain were involved with the discussion. In fact some didn’t like and spoke out against an exclusion list. Honestly the list on Steem makes no sense at all to me. It seems some in the group responsible for it felt it would be a way to pressure the “Hive team” into giving them the HIVE airdrop. So maybe they just picked random people, including an exchange, 2 dApps and a brand new stakeholder.
And yes you are right, a human made the code and decided the factors.
Why can we not choose case by case and consider others to add or changes to the original code used to punish those who may have 'accidentally not voted' for sock puppets, etc.
I believe, based on the post above, many of those will be looked at and considered as yes many probably didn’t know what they were doing and therefore the purpose of an appeal. But I’m not sure what you mean by adding more or changing the original code - the airdrop is already done. No other accounts will be excluded, it’s over. What the community can do now is decide if it want to overturn the code decisions and in what ways. Some may want to see all excluded accounts receive an airdrop, some may want to see those who didnt appear to know what they were doing receive it. Some may not want to see any of them receive it due to the actions they took on Steem. The community gets to use their votes to decide this.. therefore solving the issue of it being a decision by a few. As well as addressing issues a code cannot see, only a human can.
This is not a script error in any way. Now the script works as intended. That those accounts accounts are in the blacklist is very intended. After all they used their stake in favor of Sun.
I don't believe that it should be done case by case. After all this is a thing done in the blockchain code. There something like "I didn't know" shouldn't matter in the least. I rather think that it should even be a binary proposal: "only STINC stake, or STINC-supporting stake as well?"
I guess for the two mentioned accounts it might be possible to "refund" them using regular proposals should the upcoming announced proposals turn out not in their favor.
Of course, morally that would be the right thing to do. But for example a similar mistake could be someone losing their keys for their account. I doubt that you'd vouch for them to be able to get their stake back. Such mistakes are very bitter, but the affected ones will have to accept them.
As @blocktrades said, and I tried to say as well, individual proposals aren't something that's impossible. I just think that if we're gonna put that into the blockchain code as a hardfork, we should keep all emotions out of that if you know what I mean.
I totally want them to receive their funds back. No doubt about that :)
Your point about losing one's keys is clever. Personally, I don't support key manipulation, so sadly it's game over. People are responsible.
If you have no clue what you are doing, not voting seems to be the only reasonable choice before learning the system. However the same witnesses who made the exclusion list were beating the drum to get people to vote witnesses which undoubtedly pressured some people to make mistakes.
It is a very very unfortunate situation for them, and I am all in for supporting them however possible. (I will vote on the proposals in a way in which they will get their funds back)
No, I don't think it was. Pretty sure they just voted the best way they knew how and as it was written everywhere to vote "the real top 20", they voted the top 20 - not knowing who was real or not.
Yeah, I think this should be done case by case, unless ALL or NONE clearly win.
The way it seems to be happening means we gotta be particularly forgiving or spiteful.
I'd prefer to see a statement from all interested groups.
Yeah, there is quite an "eclectic" range of accounts there, including some active users as well as at least one slowwalker farming alt.
Yeah, Im happy to see a few names on there and puzzled by a few more.
It probably was determined by their original criteria and an error.
We also have to keep in mind the 'criteria' and the list itself were 100% centralized decision making and somewhat arbitrary.
We don't even have a list of people/account names who decided on the list.
I'd write a post on it, but I promised not to here. Maybe I'll do on Steem where I'm not bounded by my arbitrary promises.
The decision was made by the large group of people responsible for building the chain you are writing this on. As well as the large group of witnesses who ran the code. There is nothing centralized about it.
The criteria is listed in the post.. it was based on actions the accounts made, not some sort of subjective picking and choosing. Just purely code.
Now it's the second stage - where the community gets comb through it with a human eye and decide what happens.
Thank you for answering. I know you are saying as much as you can and the list is not in the public domain. A large group isn't decentralized. It is just less centralized.
Perhaps I'm now most curious to compare with the people who've been recently frozen on Steem, especially the newer community members on the steem frozen list. Were all these accounts involved in the hive airdrop decision?
I understand the list was based on code and actions of the affected accounts. However that code was made by and approved by humans who subjectively picked and chose the variables and constants, and decided to execute the code. It wasn't some AI or devine decision.
I'm curious about the next step. Why can we not choose case by case and consider others to add or changes to the original code used to punish those who may have 'accidentally not voted' for sock puppets, etc.
There's nothing that prevents individual appeals, if you want to make them.
It’s not that there is a private list of those involved, it’s just it’s a group of 100+ people who included most Steem witnesses (not just top 20), devs, some community members etc that was involved in the Hive launch.
And a large group made up of representatives that the community votes for is the exact way the DPOS platform works and the definition of decentralization.
No, not all accounts that have now been frozen on the Steem chain were involved with the discussion. In fact some didn’t like and spoke out against an exclusion list. Honestly the list on Steem makes no sense at all to me. It seems some in the group responsible for it felt it would be a way to pressure the “Hive team” into giving them the HIVE airdrop. So maybe they just picked random people, including an exchange, 2 dApps and a brand new stakeholder.
And yes you are right, a human made the code and decided the factors.
I believe, based on the post above, many of those will be looked at and considered as yes many probably didn’t know what they were doing and therefore the purpose of an appeal. But I’m not sure what you mean by adding more or changing the original code - the airdrop is already done. No other accounts will be excluded, it’s over. What the community can do now is decide if it want to overturn the code decisions and in what ways. Some may want to see all excluded accounts receive an airdrop, some may want to see those who didnt appear to know what they were doing receive it. Some may not want to see any of them receive it due to the actions they took on Steem. The community gets to use their votes to decide this.. therefore solving the issue of it being a decision by a few. As well as addressing issues a code cannot see, only a human can.
:D
Didn't get it. What's your arbitrary promise? ;)
I said I won't make post on Hive about steem. Or issues directly related to the split.
I guess for the two mentioned accounts it might be possible to "refund" them using regular proposals should the upcoming announced proposals turn out not in their favor.
We err because we are human my friend. All accounts deserve a second chance if they are willing to accept forgiveness.
Of course, morally that would be the right thing to do. But for example a similar mistake could be someone losing their keys for their account. I doubt that you'd vouch for them to be able to get their stake back. Such mistakes are very bitter, but the affected ones will have to accept them.
As @blocktrades said, and I tried to say as well, individual proposals aren't something that's impossible. I just think that if we're gonna put that into the blockchain code as a hardfork, we should keep all emotions out of that if you know what I mean.
I totally want them to receive their funds back. No doubt about that :)
Your point about losing one's keys is clever. Personally, I don't support key manipulation, so sadly it's game over. People are responsible.
If you have no clue what you are doing, not voting seems to be the only reasonable choice before learning the system. However the same witnesses who made the exclusion list were beating the drum to get people to vote witnesses which undoubtedly pressured some people to make mistakes.
It is a very very unfortunate situation for them, and I am all in for supporting them however possible. (I will vote on the proposals in a way in which they will get their funds back)