We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain
I would argue this soft fork goes against that. This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's absolutely misleading. This isn't about an account having too much stake, but rather about the ninja mined stake from Steemit Inc., which was unfairly mined and is now threatening the governance of this system.
Nobody of these Witnesses would just censor an account, because of too much stake. That is absurd and misleading.
So why isn't freedom included in this?
Because he's voted in all of the witnesses who made this decision. Isn't that obvious?
The conflict of interest here is ludicrous.
They just think we're stupid.
That has nothing to do with it. I would have at least expected for you to understand the difference between Steemit Inc and non Steemit Inc stakeholders.
Doesn't this look like the top witnesses just ensuring they will remain the top witnesses?
He isn't part of Steemit Inc.
I could say he is, and we have no way of proving either way. That's beside the point though; if the problem is ninja-mined stake, selectively picking the biggest one absolutely shows that this is about the amount of stake.
To be clear, everyone here that did due diligence when investing knows about the ninjamine, and I'm not advocating removing any of the powers that comes along with that stake, just using it as a rhetorical device.
You do have a point.
It's more than selectively picking the biggest one. They've selectively chosen to ignore the ninja-mined stake that is already doing what they're afraid of in favor of blocking one that isn't, while doing things that way accrues financial benefit to themselves.
Freedom is not Steemit Inc, regardless how much you might despise his activities. Also, nobody is just censoring an account based on speculations. All the accounts that were part of SF 0.22.2, are 100% Steemit Inc accounts.
"As far as we know". If anyone can prove that freedom is in fact Steemit or Ned or Dan or such, then please bring it forward.
To be fair, their argument is (as I understand it) the steemit inc stake has been bound by a contract with the community, so this is to enforce that contract.
Its not only about the ninjamine, its about conflicting information, its about clear and open lies, its about broken promises.
If Ned makes a statement that he will not use the ninjamine stake to influence the community consensus, essentially entering into a social contract with us over that stake, then when that stake is sold, that social contract is passed on to Justin.
Why hasn't this been enforced before the stake changed hands? Why is this only coming to fruition now that Justin has bought the stake?
If you could prove that freedom was/is part of Steemit then I would argue for it to be included. But as you say, you can't prove this, so I doubt many/any witnesses are going to take action on the basis of nothing but speculation.
Yes, exactly. We can speculate all we want, but no actions were taken on accounts that were not proven to be Steemit Inc. accounts. Simply having large stake is not the issue here.
It can't be proven either way, but from the way the ninjamine occurred, I would lean towards freedom at least being an insider. That's just an opinion without proof though, and I'm not advocating any stake, ninjamined or not, get curbed or removed. This breaks the DPoS.
Then why didn't the witnesses ban the stake BEFORE? If it was illegal and mined improperly, then why wasn't it dealt with many years ago? Why do you not ban the ninja mined stake from others too, ones that support your projects @therealwolf?
This stake is a piece of property that had specific terms of use on it. Take a look at the helpful roadmap link in the post. This mitigation is proposed, written and implemented by a group of people who believe in decentralization and the vision behind Steem building communities like nothing before it first and foremost.
So why didn't the fork happen when misterdelegation started delegating steem power, even though that stake was never to be using the reward pool?
Face it, there was no terms with this stake, there was only empty promises, which could have been handled in good faith by declining voting rights.
Because some people foolishly believed in Ned's good faith as a founder, bought into his continuous stream of empty promises, and others frankly were benefiting from the delegations and preferred to take the route of self-enrichment. That's a pattern that has played out over and over, but it doesn't mean that taking firm action to stop the misuse of the stake and general screwing over of the stakeholders and community at various different junctures wouldn't have been the right decision then, nor that it isn't now.
Now the same people who didn't have the foresight to enforce this "social contract" regarding steemit inc stake are making a seemingly emotional decision based on what might happen. I for one hold the people who have allowed the situation to get here more culpable than something that may happen because a questionable character bought @ned's bags.
Fair
This is a good question. I guess its because we all knew Ned and people normally like to believe that others are honest and are good. Declining voting rights is absolutely something that's a desirable outcome.