You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why I won’t be compromising with Justin Sun

in #steemlast year

I'm absolutely committed to providing my development resources and knowledge to a new chain, and would be interested in joining this team of ~36. I'd also hope that we allow for more input into the decentralization of the chain, as the problems around the ninja-mine (not the ninja-mine itself) imho, mostly stemmed from the fact that the stake was also able to control governance. I'd like to see a chain where you actually can't just buy control. LMK how to contact you/this team and I'll get started. Cheers!

Sort:  

I'd like to see a chain where you actually can't just buy control.

https://steemit.com/steem/@novacadian/q7c831

Disagree with implementation there, although SP limit does make sense. I was looking at changing number of witness votes, even a 51% attack gets hard when you have to figure out how to split that 51% amongst 4 witness votes, and still have all 4 in top 20, just to get a veto.

We are in agreement that more massaging of the witness voting scheme needs doing. Yet to carry old baggage to the new incarnation of the chain seems to be setting things up to fail in advance. If STINC's was the only ninja mined coin, then a surgical @null|Mr. Sun makes sense yet it was not. Now @freedom will have greater influence and Bernie can be an even bigger bully.

This is exactly what I was talking about re: Bobinson about ninja stake vs. governance issues. I'm totally ok talking about bernie and freedom once governance is stable and, imo, fixed by not allowing the outsized influence. If freedom could only vote 1 witness, and that guy got #1 bc of it, I don't care tbh. It's when one person can control a supermajority of witnesses that I have issues, and that's my issue w/ governance overall. ninja mine would have been a lot less of an overall issue, if it could only control 1 witness per steem.

as the problems around the ninja-mine (not the ninja-mine itself) imho, mostly stemmed from the fact that the stake was also able to control governance. I

Well said. I have always thought the same. Its not the ninja-mine thats the issue but how it was used or rather not used.

'Put someone you hate in charge of the system, does it still work?' has been all over discord lately and it's so true. 'Would you prefer x in charge?' misses the point entirely for me. It's about decentralization, not about who is in charge. There shouldn't be a person 'in charge'. Getting rid of the ninja stake only gets rid of the ninja stake. It doesn't solve the problems we've had regarding decentralization, since the ninja mine didn't cause those either, it just made them super fuckin obvious.

There shouldn't be a person 'in charge'. Getting rid of the ninja stake only gets rid of the ninja stake.

I wish more people understands this. If we need decentralized system as we claim it is, the system design should be done in such a way that there should be hard coded rules that will not change with people's ego. The way I look at the current drama is a failure by the design to incorporate multiple scenarios. It must be remedied in the long term.

I'd like to see a chain where you actually can't just buy control.

Exactly!

Send me your email via steem.chat and I'll add you in.

Or you can email me directly at dan thatfunnyatsymbol blocktrades.us

I would also like to be included in the team. I work on a team with two other developers to build blockchain-as-a-service solutions (formerly steem-as-a-service) and would like to be a voice for LTS blockchain and DPoS governance improvements.

Emailed directly, steem.chat (?) has weird issues for me sometimes. Steemit.chat has expired ssl

Ok, invite on the way to your inbox.