My Critique on HIVEio's Second Airdrop "Proposal."

in #hiveio4 years ago (edited)

Both groups that were left out, the proxied and individual voters, were part of the 300 that were airdrop-excluded based upon arbitrary metrics. Many of these folks had steem power as low as 1000sp, and their only "crime" was their participation in a vote for witness.

I don't think the majority of these individuals wanted to see a split chain, nor did they know with certainty that the chain was splitting. Yet, one of the metrics for excluding them was that they had to unvote Sun-related candidates, before the announcement of HIVE.

The proposal introduced to address this problem was a feint at best. In my opinion, whoever designed it did not do so to give those excluded a fair shot at inclusion, but rather to provide an illusion that a process to redress their grievances has occurred.

By introducing the proposal in a multiple-choice format and then dividing the aggrieved group of 300 into two different categories, HIVEio has essentially rigged the outcome so that neither group has a chance to defeat the no-drop group within the eight allotted days.

In essence, HIVEio coopted either aggrieved party as a spoiler (in politics) or an unwitting confederate (in magic) or a useful idiot. This, so that a single vote for either party of the same cause will ultimately end up serving to work in the favor of the no-drop option.

Color me impressed, it's a fantastic way to provide an illusion of a fair process while completely undermining it to secure a predetermined outcome. The sad part about this, as I look at the numbers, is that the underhanded tactic appears to have been completely unnecessary.

I avoided this deception with my small vote, and anyone can, by voting for both of the aggrieved parties. However, most folks won't manage to vote for the actual proposal outside of the post, let alone have the foresight to see how HIVEio pitted both aggrieved parties of the same cause against each other.

The move seems to have intentionally awarded the no drop proposal a clear and strategic advantage, one that it didn't even need. HIVEio didn't need to manufacture consensus on this issue to get their desired result.

Doing so only further added to this stupid blockchain war where peoples tokens, stake, and votes are getting assailed by both the HIVE community and Steem. Bearing witness to this kind of crap, at the end of the world as we know it, is causing me to fall more and more out of love with the blockchain with each passing day.

I'm hopeful that at one point, someone will create a blockchain that solves many of the major issues. This, before the various chains, split themselves into oblivion, and people en masse end up deciding to leave 100th-monkey-style because it simply isn't worth the drama, time, money, or heartache.


The proposal isn't the end of this thing. The proposal is basically ratifying the decision that was already made or altering it to fit the will of the community + investors. The individual users can still use the proposal system to plead their case and I have spoken to witnesses that are entirely for them doing that and will even help them appeal to the investors they need to get the votes to fix the problem.

All in all, there are people with fundamental ideological disagreements about what we are trying to do and rewarding them for that is not in our best interests. No one owes anyone anything, when the chain split and HIVE became it's own thing, none of us had to get anything. They could have simply said here you all start with nothing, they could have restarted mining like STEEM had done initially and repeated the premine bullshit, or anything else they wanted. This is what we got and if anyone wants to change it, well that's what the proposals are for and yes as always the people with the most invested will have the biggest impact on the decision.

It is what it is, nothing is going to make everyone happy. Personally I am for no additional blanket airdrops as these are mostly people that acted to sabotage STEEM in favor of centralization and the actions they have taken afterwards only reinforce that. Hopefully you can find peace with whatever happens, but I am totally of the mindset that not rewarding people for trying to collectively fuck us all over is the only logical decision here. If there weren't trying to do that, then tell them to make a proposal and plead their case.

The latest post, which highlights three proposals, is constructed in such a way as to allow for a prescribed winner. The prescribed winner is the only one of the three that are against the aggrieved parties, and the aggrieved parties are divided (conquered) into two camps. This means, even though they are on the same side, they're forced to steal votes from each other, and this ensures they will both lose.

The way I see it, something like this was HIVEio's one opportunity to right a wrong, but the effort is a ruse. How much support would a single hive account have to garner to trigger an airdrop? I don't know how realistic these single proposals are. I know I voted for rollandp on the steem blockchain so he could get his funds back, but I'm not sure it's going to happen or if it did happen.

The way I see it, these low SP accounts were voting for a witness, or for someone to vote for witnesses on their behalf. Had they known it was going to trigger a chain split and the community would veer left, there's a good chance they may have voted in a different way, but we'll never know because they had to vote in a prescribed manner before the announcement of HIVE. This thing is so weird, and the very idea of contrived voting systems seems completely abhorrent to me.

When I think of voting, people ought to vote for whomever they want. And they agree that based on the consensus of the vote, they will follow the leader who won. Only this time, the votes, some of which may have been cast well before Sun arrived at the blockchain, caused a skew in the space-time continuum and resulted in two winners. One based on dPoS and the other based on the will of the witnesses who lost. And they were so salty that they targeted penny-ante accounts to make them pay for "voting incorrectly."

At some point, someone will fix the fundamental problems that Larimer/Scott left in their wake, and their models of blockchain will get laid to rest in the dustbin of history. I'm not sure it can be fixed by changing code, or if it's just rearranging deck chairs. I guess that someone will have to create something that unfucks all the problems from scratch. They'll have to be a bright coder capable of seeing all the angles.

"...they agree that based on the consensus of the vote, they will follow the leader who won."

I think this is why you keep feeling the vote was unfairly used to exclude people from the airdrop. In a democracy of people necessarily dependent on the vote because the polity involved is a geographic region in which they reside, that is the reality of voting.

Blockchains and social media platforms are absolutely different. No one has to agree to abide by the majority vote at all. Not accepting the vote does not force them to rebel against the polity that rules their homeland.

They're not forced to participate at all. It is completely different than voting for a geographical government because you can just join Flote, or Gab, or, Fakebook if you don't like Hive.

Hive didn't owe any of us airdrops, and however they determined how to airdrop tokens or not do so was entirely at their option. No one has to agree or disagree at all, and can just go about their lives utterly ignoring what Hive did completey unaffected.

You can't do that voting for Governor of Vermont. If you can't abide the majority decision, you either leave or rebel. You have to abide by the majority decision to continue to participate in the polity, and leaving the polity is a major upheaval of your life.

This difference is one of the greatest advances in human political technology that has ever been achieved IMHO. It will produce myriad blockchains, not one to rule all humanity. Government will forever be less oppressive in that world to come where one person living in a home can be part of a completely different polity than another living in the same home.

Truly voluntary government is in the offing, and no one has any right to airdrops from any of them, nor will be forced to participate in any of them. China's forced Social Credit system is the penultimate geographically based polity merely implemented online. It is not at all such a voluntary polity, and won't long exist IMHO, as preferable options arise in the future, and people unwilling to abide by that barbaric oppression will simply join competing polties they want to.

No one has to join Hive, or abide by it's policies.

I see HIVE as the continuation of Steem because of the extant blockchain circumstances that will only keep repeating until the problem gets solved permanently. You see it as a separate territory, and that's one way to look at it. However, the internet is infinite, and people are finite. If we keep rinsing and repeating this same mistake, over and over again, then the number of active users will become so minuscule that the project will lose its luster and become abandoned. Ultimately, people need to fix the failed model or lose faith in it, so they can create a better one before people give up on the blockchain social media concoction entirely.

"No one has to join Hive, or abide by it's policies."

I agree, all we did was slap a new logo on the same failed product.

I agree. I don't think we could survive as a community a second hard fork away from a solitary takeover, or our current oligarchy changing policies to allow more censorship. I find that prospect likely going forward, as political pressure is going to mount to censor the folks posting on Hive.

The oligarchy seems to be intent on income primarily, and nominal threats that could be brought to bear on them if they continue to resist censorship will probably work.

Why do you think that our current oligarchy changing policies to allow more censorship might be likely going forward? Is it because of the blockchain war, or people dual posting to both chains and those who oppose it?

Banksters are intent on achieving a global tyranny, and the pointy end of that assault is psychological manipulation. Factual information renders their propaganda weapon useless, so they are absolutely dependent on censorship, which Hive resists because the oligarchs govern it that way.

However, the primary interest of these oligarchs is personal aggrandizement, and the record of HF's, self-voting, circle jerks and the like clearly reveals this. This fact is easily ascertained and trivial to use to persuade the cabal governing Hive to support the imposition of the nascent global tyranny by threatening financial ruin.

Given the $T's being spent to censor the world and push the psyop that justifies the New World Order, as Hive stands out more and more as a vector for factual information the incentive to censor it increases as time goes on.

I don't think it will be long before we see the sudden imposition of censorship on Hive, or the replacement of extant oligarchs with Goldman Sachs sockpuppets a la Steem. In fact, I think Sun Yuchen's takeover of Steem was the initial attempt to do this, but the Hive oligarchs felt slighted and Hive exists because they weren't satisfied financially by Sun Yuchen's profits. They want to get paid to roll over.

Carrots and sticks, buyouts or concerted financial assaults on their assets, will quickly sort our covert owners into actual supporters of freedom and decentralization and greedy bastards. Since the record of their governance of the blockchain indicates they are the latter, I am pretty confident the rhetoric of decentralization will continue to spew from their lying mouths while they brutally censor anyone who speaks the truth, just as Sun Yuchen does on Steem today.

It's not a new model. They don't have to invent the wheel here. I can't count the number of examples in history where it has been implemented in the past. I can't count the successful examples of such covert leaders resisting that pressure to crush society either, because there just aren't any to count.

So, I reckon it's highly unlikely the decentralization rhetoric has any basis in actual fact, and their real motivations have been revealed by their actions to better profit from the blockchain during prior HF's.

There are several ways to look at how this all unfolded, and questions will all ways be there as to the why of it and the different spin people put on it. I am glad to see the almost finalization to this. I would have preferred this was not needed at all. That once the initial airdrop was done it was all over. Hive was not created to just be a mirror of steem, it was created because a few people felt it was needed and could be a violable option to a centralized steem block chain and return control to a decentralized state to continue on with the decentralized experiment.

No one is excluded from joining or participating on the Hive block chain. Had the individuals that made the split just ignored all the outcry of unfair and ended it at that one air drop, then we may have been a lot closer to correcting the Issue that led to the split. The Witness selection and retention system.

Much of what you say is true. If you were excluded, and you were not a part of some grand conspiracy to centralize the blockchain, would you want to continue with Hive? Bear in mind, that you were just excluded from the airdrop, and that exclusion was based on failing to unvote. Do you think the existing witnesses will be likely to evolve the blockchain in such a way where witness votes decay? They'd be imposing upon themselves an uncertain future and signing up for a lot of extra work with regards to campaigning.

I read the Hive post about the split. I understood it. I am not a crypto person and I had delegated my witness voting to another individual. I checked with that person to ensure they were not voting Sun's witnesses. To me it was a simple and easy thing to understand.

Now even if I did not understand it, I would still have been fine with not being air dropped. It was My Responsibility to understand it if I wanted to participate and receive the air drop.

I may have started a power down a little bit sooner than I did if I did not receive the air drop, and then learned how to convert that steem into hive to power up and participate in the Hive block chain.

Do you think the existing witnesses will be likely to evolve the blockchain in such a way where witness votes decay? They'd be imposing upon themselves an uncertain future and signing up for a lot of extra work with regards to campaigning.

This is what I am hoping for on the Hive Block Chain, a reworking of the Witness Selection/Retention system. I am hoping that this will be the very first fix that comes in after the final split HF 24. It is also part of the reason I am not doing a full power down on Steem, if Hive is going to end up like steem with a centralized governing body, then I will have to re-evaluate what option I want to participate in.

There are currently witnesses that are keeping people informed of their intents, there are people that are not witnesses that are thinking of becoming one so that they can have a say in changes. If a witness does not want to engage with the people, if they do not want to lobby with the people, if they do not want to put the time in to let the people know what they are doing/thinking then they may find they are no longer a witness. Once again it falls on the People to accept responsibility for their own actions and choices made.

The Vote Decay is a thing that really needs to be done. Witness are not the Dictators of Hive, they are not the Judge, Jury, and Executioners of Hive Governance, they are an elected body. I hope like hell that one comment/post I saw does not happen and that is people wanting to be witnesses forming into a two party political system. Talk about stagnation as a chain we would have that with a political system.

"I read the Hive post about the split. I understood it. I am not a crypto person and I had delegated my witness voting to another individual. I checked with that person to ensure they were not voting Sun's witnesses. To me it was a simple and easy thing to understand.

Now even if I did not understand it, I would still have been fine with not being air dropped. It was My Responsibility to understand it if I wanted to participate and receive the air drop."

At the time that you read that, if you had voted for Sun's socks or a proxy who voted for his socks, it would have been too late, and you would have gotten excluded from the airdrop based on the arbitrary metrics. It wasn't if you vote for Sun, we're going to fuck you. It was, fuck you, you voted for Sun. And most of those people, especially the proxied votes, may have voted months before Sun arrived on the scene. Let me see if I can dig up the GitHub that shows the metrics.

"Accounts excluded who voted a minimum of two sockpuppets or proxied someone who voted a minimum of two and who didn't unvote before the hive announcement with more than 1k sp" — GitHub

It will be interesting to see if witnesses impose vote decay
on themselves. My guess is that they won't desire to do that.

I deeply empathize with your observation today. I had to negotiate the State Employment Department's phone tree regarding the CARES Act benefits. I just remarked to a friend moments ago that phone tree strongly impressed me with it's extremely well designed ability to prevent callers from ever reaching an actual human being, and thus to keep them from getting any benefits the new law provides.

I know just what you mean.

Thanks, I know you disagree that they should get
the drop, but am glad you can see through the ruse.

I would have to look at the actual folks involved and hear what they have to say to decide if I think they should get it or not.

What I disagree with is that they are owed it.

Blockchain doesn't solve the problems inherent in human nature. Blockchain is only a tool, and the real issue I think is the "eye for an eye" mentality that doesn't really do much good at all.
The voting of the proposals isn't clear to me at this point, as it seems overly complex. I agree that splitting this though doesn't seem fair.
A more fair way to approach it would have been this:
One simple vote: Yes Airdrop or No Airdrop.
After that, if the Yes Airdrop won, then it could be voted on how to do the airdrop, with a Individual vs. Proxy vote.
I agree that it does seem biased in how it was done.

I agree, a Yes Airdrop vs. No Airdrop would have at
least been an honest effort to solve the problem.

Have you looked into holochain?

Nope, but I'll check into
it! Thanks for the info.

You can see this kind of thing in government. The weird shape of some Federal ridings to put all who belong to the same ethnic group into a block is telling.

Well the metrics they used weren't coded
to exclude stake based on ethnicity afaik.