You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Just So We're Clear - The Tech Manager of Steemit Is Anti Democracy and Pro Oligarchy - in His Own Words.

in #steemit5 years ago (edited)

Direct democracy invalidates Representing anything. It's the choices of the majority, that's all, hence why democracy is always the majority voting to eat the minority for dinner.

The problem is with saying that the voice of One individual equates to anything remotely representing the community on the other hand, such as Sneak's Freedom of Expressing his opinion of a topic, it actually doesn't say ANYTHING about: Steem, Steemit Inc, The Community, Vaccines, or anything other than the fact that it's his opinion. Free Speech friendly indeed, and I should know I have taken down troll after troll of people purveying vaccines as even mildly ok, and it's clearly transparent while nothing and nobody can stop you from speaking your mind on here.

Equating weighted voting to democracy would be equating democracy to your vote counts only if you have 50k or more, and that's not an opinion but the begrudging reality of Vests vs One Vote One Voter Democracy.


direct democracy means everyone has a voice and represents himself. but you prefer a system where someone else decides for you? I find that hard to believe unless you're part of the 0.1% or secrete societies which constitute the deep state.
we have no experience of direct democracy apart from Ancient Greece, which was more civilized than we are and noone hate anyone for dinner.
the notion of majority though needs to be scrapped and replaced with overwhelming majority. if a law or decision is really needed then at least 90% should be in favour of it. Any decision needs to have a broad enough consensus.

yeah laws are mostly unnecessary (I believe only in 1 law: don't use violence)...but in community governance sometimes decisions need to be made...and I believe if a decision reaches at least 90% of consensus among the population it is likely something that most can live with....instead now we have a tiny elite taking us into wars noone ever voted for and using our taxes to murder people. there will never be a 90% consensus for that unless the internet became completely controlled....and again such control would never be let through by the 90%. So I remain convinced direct democracy is a better system than letting some "illuminati" 0.1% Elite decide what is best for everyone....we've seen enough of it. time for a complete change and direct democracy, collective intelligence and wisdowm of the crowds are in my opinion the way forward.

The entire concept of the witness system is based on instilling the principle of decentralisation in such a way that consensus can be reached on the content of the blockchain and thus we can rely on the contents of the chain not having been manipulated. If the top witness positions are all controlled then the chain can theoretically be edited and controlled/censored at that level. Anything that limits the ability of any potential witness candidate from being able to rise to a top position, which does not limit SOME of the witnesses is itself a threat to the entire schema.

I don't really understand how you manage to, in every comment you make, twist what I have said into something I haven't said and to be frank, as you have done in every interaction we have had, I feel like you are trolling me.

For the sake of completeness:

So the concept isn't based on the front end, but then it is? Either the concept ISN'T based on SteemIt Inc or it is.

You have not been specific when you stated the phrase 'the concept' - so I am not 100% clear what you are referring to. The front end of is the primary interface to the steem blockchain currently (in terms of numbers of users). The witness voting page is the only place in to make witness votes. Therefore, the witness voting page is the primary interface used to log witness votes.

Steem actions and logs the votes, while is the primary portal for their input.

Ned has ceded that it isn't,

I do not know what you are referring to there.

you claim that because it can be controlled and because of Steemit "limits" the "process" (both of which are exaggerations and not small or little at all)

Not exaggerations, but provable fact. The only question is whether or not the limitation is deliberate or not.

somehow you think that steemit can ever be run like Steem

I have no idea what this means.

If I make a website like busy that phrases the data, and I "limit" the phrasing to only what I like, by your logic it limits and invalidates in a way the very notion of Decentralization through the Witnesses.

I am specifically referring to the witness voting process only, with regards decentralisation. I think you are missing the point.

I am muting you now as I feel our interactions are a waste of my time.

Direct democracy invalidates Representing anything. It's the choices of the majority, that's all, hence why democracy is always the majority voting to eat the minority for dinner.

Direct democracy is at least better than representational democracy which is the illusion that the people have a voice - at least direct democracy gives people a real voice. However, yes, democracy is not a balanced approach - regardless of it's application.

With regards the issue of vote weight and power etc. - I have recently made several posts that demonstrate how the witness voting system on is acting to conglomerate power in the hands of the top 50 witnesses (some of which are actually dead accounts) - which serves ultimately to centralise power in a very 'deep state' kind of way - in other words 'the game is rigged'. The point has been raised by numerous people over the last year+, yet no fix has been forthcoming. Witnesses are intended to be the ones who choose to accept or reject a hardfork - it is a selling point of the system and a key point in it's design. This design point is being circumvented.

Democracies are dangerous.

  • If 50.1% of the people decide everyone must drive pink cars with purple polka dots, you must get your purple car with pink polka dots painted or get thrown in jail.
    • A representational government without a contract (such as our Constitution and Bill of Rights) is just as dangerous.
      • Neither arrangement protects the rights of the minority. The smallest minority being the individual.

Perhaps what Steemit needs is a "Constitution." Acknowledging the users have certain rights, such as transparency of leadership... ??? ...

If 50.1% of the people decide everyone must drive pink cars with purple polka dots

That sort of insane decision is infact more likely where there is no democracy, and in countries at the whim of some Dictator. I agree that starting from a Constitution is wise in all cases....but then again how and who decides what goes into the Constitution? Wide consensus would be needed....which is essentially direct democracy with an high quota.

Yes, democracy does not fully respect free will!
I'm not sure how a constitution can really be used in practice without it involving some kind of force, which would have to be encoded into the steem blockchain logic. I think EOS has some kind of allowance for this but it might require Dan's deliberate insertion of it from the get-go for it to work. We shall see.

Better how? Better why?

Better because at least if I personally get to register a vote on specific issues, my vote (might) count for something. Representational democracy is just a farce that pretends to give people a voice, but which in practise only serves to concentrate vast power in the hands of the few. How many people ever meet their 'representative'? How many people's real voice is reflected in the actions of the representative? The number is tiny in both cases.

Umm it seems that in the end you conclude that it's not a "balanced" approach? What could be MORE balanced? Its balance won't change the fact that it's still a poor idea.

A voluntarist society would be more balanced than democracy and it requires an evolution of the heart and a willingness to live peacefully. I have written several times on this, but for some reason google isn't brining up the most relevant posts. Here's one that covers the topic to some extent:

You see a few people participating in the voting and you disregard their ability to vote.

I have no idea what this line refers to.

What else is there to say, you think that people cannot use their vote effectively, what I want to know is what is the qualia for Centralization of Power if you consider a list of 50 people that omits 350 others or relegates them to being picked by typing in the name as an impendent to people voting, and ultimately positing that those whose votes actually count, or the ones whos accounts are Powerd Up are somehow unable to use the functionality of the website to vote for anyone other than the top 50. It's one leap of logic to another, I don't buy it, demonstrate that a) centralization of power in a very 'deep state' kind of way and b)game is rigged are apt descriptions and not blatant misrepresentations and exaggerations compounded with asenine insinuations of inVestor's lack of common sense.

Here's some data on that:

Here's a solution that would be EASY to implement:

Only just now I was informed (as often happens) that someone wanted to vote for me and thought he had voted for me, but the vote wasn't logged in SteemD (but WAS showing in Just another 'bug'.

Either way, you don't have a clear reason why it's better than "representative is worse".

You asked me why direct democracy was better, I explained why it is better. the end.

And concerning steem then you want everyone to have an equal vote for the witnesses? And how and why is that better anyway?

your statement 'have an equal vote for the witnesses' is imprecise. to clarify, I simply want all witnesses to be visible in the list from which people make their votes.

More balanced how and why? A million buzzwordz won't change the fact that an idiotic idea no matter how balanced will never be a great idea. You cannot turn roadkill into a top cut of beef, no matter how much sauce you give it or how you grill it.

I do not equate voluntarism with democracy, so unless you are calling voluntarism an idiotic idea, again, I am not clear what you are saying here.

That's about you Disregarding people's ability to vote (poor witness voting page), people who represent a minority not by design but by choice (how many accounts with over 1000 SP do you think are "manipulated" or "impaired" in their voting by the voting page?

I think you have misinterpreted something I have written because I have no idea what you are talking about here - it just doesn't fit in with the situation. I am not disregarding anyone's ability to vote.

Any account owner, regardless of their SP is going to be hindered in the process of freely choosing a voting candidate, if they cannot see all of them - it's not difficult to understand is it?

I already provided a link to an analysis that shows how the amount of votes received by users in the 40/50 region jumps fairly profoundly. I have spoken with a witness who moved into the top 50 fairly recently and who confirmed that it is unfair and he receives hugely more votes now he is in the top 50. I can also show two posts from the last few hours where people have tried to vote for me using the steemit witness page and they have typed my name in, the interface has shown that they have voted for me, but the vote was not logged in the blockchain.

If you cannot understand how this is unfair then that is not my problem.

They can choose anyone they wish, even people that aren't in the top 50, can they not?

a) They have no way of knowing who the witnesses outside of the top 50 even are, unless they do significant amounts of research.
b) Even when they do choose someone outside of the top 50, there are at least two major reasons why there is a good chance their vote will fail.