You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The recent controversy between Steemit Inc and the community - the premine, control, and where it leads this blockchain

in #steem6 years ago

The ninja mine was done to fund Steemit to do the development. I'm not sure if investors would have been any better. I know that I personally don't really like the idea of people only bringing money to the table and then sucking all the profits out and pushing you to fuck everything up just for more profit. The problem is that Steemit has been acting as a dictator and actually discouraging development in various ways.

Eventually there will be a fork. I don't know if it will happen because of this issue. It's up to the people that will be doing the actual development and the people funding that development. I think that the future forks that will happen will be a good thing for the most part. The problem is potentially splitting the community. But I don't think that should necessarily be a reason to not do a fork if the potential development can be an advantage. Right now, development on Steem is pretty much fully up to Steemit and they like it that way. The problem is that they haven't been getting enough done and haven't been making it easy for others to help.

I think that we need to stop relying on Steemit and basically just pretend like they don't exist when it comes to development. We need to work on a site for communication and documentation for development and start pushing forks to witnesses. We also need to get developers together to review the code Steemit drops and put forth recommendations to witnesses and patches for the forks BEFORE they cause huge problems. The problems of the past with hard forks need to not happen...or at least be rare.

Steemit wants to lead development, but they aren't acting like a lead. They're acting like a closed source corporation that just drops code and expects everyone to just be ecstatic. We can't change the fact that they're acting like this, because they really don't have to listen to us, and do have that huge stake. The only thing we can do is start doing things on our own.

Sort:  

Yeah, investors may not have been any better, can't disagree with that. The way it was done though is clearly an example of "what not to do", since we've seen very little success with this model.

Eventually there will be a fork. I don't know if it will happen because of this issue. It's up to the people that will be doing the actual development and the people funding that development. I think that the future forks that will happen will be a good thing for the most part

I look forward to seeing what people come up with if they happen. I've always been a proponent of forks, which is why I've helped support things like Decent/SounDAC/etc. The more experiments running, the more likely one of them will succeed.

he problem is that they haven't been getting enough done and haven't been making it easy for others to help.

Amen.

I think that we need to stop relying on Steemit and basically just pretend like they don't exist when it comes to development.

The hard part here is that if something was proposed/created that Steemit Inc didn't like (for example, redirecting a portion of the rewards pool to a worker fund pool), they'd block it. That's just an example and I don't know what their stance would be in the end, but it's a problem we face if we just ignore their existence.

Well said in general though, I think you're hitting the nail on the head in terms of identifying problems and potential solutions. This post in general feels like the conversations we were having before this entire conversation entered into a death spiral of drama.

Yeah, I think if you drill through a lot of the bullshit, a lot of people are on around the same page. Except Steemit. That's the problem.

We need a lot more to be done here as far as development. Either we do it with Steemit, or we fight with them about it. If that means development that doesn't get adopted because they overule others...that sucks...but I don't see the alternatives as very good. We can't continue on the way we are going. If we start putting code out there, then Steem will move forward. Of course, if they block a change that splits the community, that's a lot more likely to cause a fork than this.

We are ourselves a fork though. It all started with Bitcoin. Forking isn't something to be afraid of. Of course, I think this isn't the issue to fork over. Whether people decide to fork due to Steemit or not, this battle needs to be fought. We need to have open source development on Steem. There's no other option. We can't rely on them.

The idea of one company pretty much doing all the development for an open source community is just...stupid.

You know, I've been building a phenomenal idea to utilise the Steem chain in a world-changing way, and many people are very excited about it (I don't want to give it away on-chain), and I have been inches away from making the proposal to the wealthy investors I work under of which this would be very relevant to their cause and business. I genuinely suspected millions of CNY could flow in this way.

I've been inches away numerous times for many weeks now. But... I can't. My idea is super exciting, putting it on a blockchain? super exciting. Putting it on the steem blockchain, where people bicker and monopolize and collude and centralize? and threaten and lie and cheat and steal, with the reputation being 'steemit.com is a place to get paid to spam'?

My idea would work totally fine the way things are, but what can I tell a multi-million investment?

'Technically it would be great, but there's a bunch of people planning on forking the blockchain which threatens the value and purpose of the entire concept. Oh, also, the CEO is totally incompetant and malicious. Oh, and nobody actually agrees on what the actual purpose of the blockchain is right now. And nobody actually cares about the content. Oh wait, and large delegated projects are getting their delegations removed including my own SteemSTEM, and the company in control is removing their investment overall. BUT, you should still invest millions because it might be worth a couple of thousand in a month or two.'

It's such an embarassing shame, I just want this project to Go. Even if all of this got ironed out instantly right now, the history of cacophony that will pull up with even the most casual google search into Steem will probably get me fired for trying to burn so much money that could otherwise have been spent on ivory backscratchers.

Not sure why I'm typing this here. Just venting.

Not sure why I'm typing this here. Just venting.

I totally get it, I hear ya and I really feel where you're coming from with this frustration. This path this has all gone down (including this entire "threat") is absolutely ludicrous. My frustration has been building up for over a year at this point, and out of respect for the actual hard work that's being done in the crypto space, I try my hardest to avoid drama at any given point.

Anyways - just know you're not alone.

Onto the rest of your post...

You know, I've been building a phenomenal idea to utilise the Steem chain in a world-changing way, and many people are very excited about it (I don't want to give it away on-chain), and I have been inches away from making the proposal to the wealthy investors I work under of which this would be very relevant to their cause and business. I genuinely suspected millions of CNY could flow in this way.

I'll be brutally honest here, since as with my original post, I'm literally on the verge of halting anything to do with this blockchain. The only way anything is going to get better around here is if people see what's going on and change it meaningfully - with or without me.

Through networking (ironically thanks to Steem), I've established relationships with a lot of crypto investors, people far more successful than I have ever been. It's not surprising, since if you're a developer in the crypto space right people tend reach out to you. Whether it's a thank you for the contributions or to talk about an idea they want to have built, it happens regularly. I say all of this not to be an arrogant asshole or anything, but to hopefully put some weight behind what I'm about to say.

I get asked regularly why I even bother working with Steem.

In the greater crypto space Steem is viewed as a failure riddled with problems, problems these investors see as a huge red flag. These people have researched hundreds of DLT platforms and have seen so many interesting applications of the technology to various sectors. They see the fundamental problems here, largely unaddressed, which pose a risk far greater than any benefit they'd see by sponsoring a project within it.

I say this because your concerns, as quoted below, are totally valid and grounded in reality.

I've been inches away numerous times for many weeks now. But... I can't. My idea is super exciting, putting it on a blockchain? super exciting. Putting it on the steem blockchain, where people bicker and monopolize and collude and centralize? and threaten and lie and cheat and steal, with the reputation being 'steemit.com is a place to get paid to spam'?

However, I to take issue with one portion of this:

'Technically it would be great, but there's a bunch of people planning on forking the blockchain which threatens the value and purpose of the entire concept. Oh, also, the CEO is totally incompetant and malicious. Oh, and nobody actually agrees on what the actual purpose of the blockchain is right now. And nobody actually cares about the content. Oh wait, and large delegated projects are getting their delegations removed including my own SteemSTEM, and the company in control is removing their investment overall. BUT, you should still invest millions because it might be worth a couple of thousand in a month or two.'

First things first, there was no "planning" of anything, which I think I've typed out at least a hundred times over the past day. Please, don't buy into this false narrative being spun. There were random questions asked about how/why/if it were to happen, in which some brief thoughts were given, but there was never anything close to what I'd consider a plan. I've been involved in multiple blockchain launches and know what a plan for launching one is, and this wasn't one of them. It was a discussion, it's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last. Feel free to read for yourself at this point, someone has been posting the entire Slack log on Steem recently as a zip file, so you can be the judge if you don't believe me.

Secondly, one of the things in the quote above is not like the other.

The entire reason a fork was even suggested was because it's a potential solution to every other issue you listed. These networks are designed so when disagreement on approaches happen, there's an option for both parties to go separate directions, on their own forks. Look at BTC vs BCH - that's exactly what happened in the debate between block size (provided you ignore the drama). That's a much, much simpler disagreement, but ultimately it required a fork to be created. Forks also provide benefit and redundancy. We'd never know how BTC would fair with larger blocks had BCH never been created.

People need to stop viewing the topic of forks as this evil thing, they're not. They're the evolution of a chain, both when done in unity and sometimes when they diverge (creating new chains). Forks are specifically designed to solve problems. Hell, Steem has been through 20 forks at this point, all to address the flaws of the previous versions that came before it.

My entire point here is you can't just lump "discussing a fork" in with the rest of those things and treat it as a problem. It has merits as an actual solution to various problem (admittedly while creating new ones), where as none of those other things do.

One last thought, if you're actually someone who is planning on building apps for a platform like Steem, you should actually want as many compatible forks as possible. It provides flexibility, specifically in that your application can exist on - or work with - multiple chains. It's basically fault tolerance. If one blockchain were to fail, that sucks, but at least you'd have the other chains to continue building on. It's like the difference in building a mobile app for one app store or multiple. You wouldn't want to only build an app on the Windows Mobile platform, because you wouldn't want to risk your product failing because the platform failed.

It's such an embarassing shame, I just want this project to Go. Even if all of this got ironed out instantly right now, the history of cacophony that will pull up with even the most casual google search into Steem will probably get me fired for trying to burn so much money that could otherwise have been spent on ivory backscratchers.

It really is, and to come full circle, I completely understand this frustration. I've personally tried to build a number of products on Steem and keep coming back to similar conclusions. None of this is new either, it's been this way for years and I've just been holding hope that it'd improve. The idea behind Steem itself has some incredible potential and implications. Many of us see glimpses of what a decentralized future involving communities and communication could look like, but we just aren't making progress in getting there.

At this point I'm just venting as well.

First things first, there was no "planning" of anything, which

This was less directed at you as the discord channel I'm in by thecryptodrive in which numerous people very much quoted themselves in support of a fork, so no worries, no accusation here.

People need to stop viewing the topic of forks as this evil thing, they're not. They're the evolution of a chain,

This is true, but the problem I foresee is, as another pointed out, the dissolution of value and the loss of by far the largest stakeholder, as well as direct competition, sabotage, vengeful slander and so forth. Most people in charge here seem to be kids in mentality and I'd except a kids response to direct competition. The result being neither chain ends up holding any value. This is a more likely scenario to me than a new chain, problems now fixed, magically finding a pure reputation and success.

At this point I'm just venting as well.

It does sting less knowing that others are facepalming too!

In the greater crypto space Steem is viewed as a failure riddled with problems, problems these investors see as a huge red flag.

Yes, the overall reputation from the layman is pretty much that too, and that's the audience we want to bring. We can't when the reputation is practically tattoo'd all over steem's face.

I like what you said about spreading one's seed to multiple forks/chains too. SteemSTEM doesn't plan on doing that yet (it's in the name after all) but the idea has been discussed lightly here and there, and it might become inevitable depending on how you higher ups figure stuff out (or not).

I'm not against rebuilding the reputation of this place from scratch (new fork or not) accepting the first two years as growing pains and proving its a place that earns respect and trust, but... I'll leave the actual roadmap to y'all!

goes to curate actual content as has been doing for 1.5 years

Most people in charge here seem to be kids in mentality and I'd except a kids response to direct competition.

The kid analogy is actually a pretty good one. Right now Steemit Inc is the parent, all of us are treated like children, and we are essentially forced to do what our parents want us to do. We can protest all we want or refuse to do something, but since Steemit Inc is the provider of all, they have leverage (both in stake and capital) to force the changes they want.

Not all parents are perfect either, some are abusive and force their children to run away. That's been happening here for years as scores of talented community members have come and gone.

I have never thought about it this way - appreciate that insight.

The result being neither chain ends up holding any value. This is a more likely scenario to me than a new chain, problems now fixed, magically finding a pure reputation and success.

I can't think of a situation in the greater crypto ecosystem where this is true. The only way a chain ends up losing all it's value is when some sort of hack or internal scam occurs. There are what, like 5 bitcoin forks all with a greater market value than Steem right now? One of them failed completely, due to vulnerabilities in consensus, which arguably is the situation Steem is in today. The actor with the power to exploit that vulnerability (Steemit Inc) just hasn't pull that trigger. Instead they've resorted to turning the community against us, which is a much smarter move.

It does sting less knowing that others are facepalming too!

Company in numbers :)

Thanks for engaging and chatting about all this stuff - all of the debate on these topics have really helped to digest the last weeks events.

Best of luck in the curation game!

I really like the idea of a worker fund pool.
If you take a look how Dash blockchain stakeholders can vote for worker proposals.
Just take a look here: https://app.dashnexus.org/proposals/leaderboard

This way developer would be encouraged to improve the Steem blockchain itsself - and Steemit Inc. would have an intencive to keep there funds on the blockchain, in order to use their large stake to influence which proposals would "pass" and receive enough voting power.

All Steem stakeholders could choose which company or individual developer should improve Steem further in an open market.

The Dash worker proposals were a hot topic during all of these chats. It's a great idea, and as I said in my post, it was the topic (incentivizing developers) that specifically caused this entire conversation to explode into a discussion about a fork.

The one downside, which also came up with the conversation, was the only way for it to actually work on Steem in the long term was a change to inflation, which likely means redirecting rewards from authors/curators rewards pool to the worker rewards pool. This will probably be a sticking point and cause a lot of grief from the community, which in turn causing grief for Steemit Inc's mission, and prevent it from happening.

I'm pretty confident that the witnesses would approve and deploy the right worker proposal system, but I fear that Steemit Inc might actually block it. Which leads us right back into the territory of who controls everything :(

Thanks for your valueable feedback as always!

I'am pretty sure most of the community would approve a small reduction on the reward pool in favor for "worker proposals". Long term this will increase the value of Steem and be more valuable for stakeholder.

If Steemit Inc would be confident in the work they deliver - there shouldn't be a reason to block it.
They could use their large premined stake of Steem in order to let their own proposals pass, even if a portion of other stakeholder think they failed to deliver in the past and won't give them another try. Of course this will be way harder if they move their stake into exchanges or sell their stakes.

I really hope there will be further negotiation with Steemit Inc about such a system in order to secure the future of Steem as a whole - or at least a statement from @ned about this topic.