RE: Softfork 0.22.2: why I didn't apply the changes to my witness node.
But it is against my belief and values to tamper with someone else account and assets.
With the same logic, would you have supported the HF9, which recovered stoled funds? Source
From a purely idealistic PoV, I can understand your stance. But the real world simply isn't idealistic.
There is a big difference between:
- stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem
- and every other account.
With your logic, ever since HF9, people could have lost trust in Witnesses controlling the stake, but thinking that would be absurd.
Same goes for the SF 222. It was a highly targeted security measure, to make sure that those funds, promised to be used for Steem, are also going to be used that way. Just because Ned sold his company, those social contracts are NOT simply nullified.
People invested time & money on here, based on those promises given. And, we, the stakeholders that are voting for the SF 222, are now demanding that those promised funds are not just going away, potentially harming the whole ecosystem; but are going to be used for Steem - however that may look like.
Also, most STEEM that was sold, was actually from those early days, which is also a reason why the STEEM price tanked harder than most others. Empty promises & hard sells from the company who created the software.
Anyway, I respect your stance, but I disagree with it.
Thanks for your reaction, I appreciate.
I don't think the HF9 case is comparable, it was an actual theft. With the SiNMS, it was an unfair acquisition during genesis, a time where no one really cared about it and then it went on "accepted" during 4 years. By accepted, I mean no one made a SF/HF against it. But maybe there are things I don't fully understand yet due to joining the platform more recently.
I do think that dealing with the SiNMS is a good thing for the platform but I guess it's about timing and I'm looking forward finding a better way to handle it.
stolen != purchased
This isn't about Justin Sun buying the stake. This is about Steemit Inc upholding their social contracts.
This is about the purchase... because you guys are effectively holding his stake hostage until you enforce your contract.
Update: that could have been negotiated, you chose to force his hand.
You can't negotiate, if you've got no leverage. Steemit Inc has (and always had) enough stake to vote in their our witnesses (30 accounts on 1 server even) and give everyone a big F. All of this should have been done earlier obviously, enforce it by code so the centralised stake can't be maliciously abused, but people had trust in Ned - mistakenly.
Due to the SF, we've got leverage now. There are always extremists on both sides, but the majority of people who are in favour of the softfork also want this relation between Tron & Steem to be positive.
However, we will not accept for Steem to be eaten up by anybody, as if we were in agar.io. You might call this FUD, I call it realistic risk assessment.
We'll have to see how that goes now.
Personally I have no bias if Steem and Tron each go their way or if they will collaborate closely. I see enough supporters of both scenarios, but what I don't like a bit is the precedent you have set and messing with property, regardless of its history. So yeah, when it comes to property I guess I'm an extremist.
What about seeing the stake as the community's property?
I'm not arguing one way or the other. But the ninja-mined stake is worth anything at all due to the community's efforts. Should it not be considered the community's property then?
It could have been seen that way and done something about it before it was sold, in my opinion.
Of course, some would argue it's still community's property, and if Sun doesn't like it, he should go to Ned and ask for his money back.
But here's when written contracts are more powerful than "understandings". Do you think he will do that? Should he do that? Do we want him to do that?
Or we just wanted him at the table in a negotiation where he will say anything we want to hear in order to see his stake released?
Ned and Justin could settle things between themselves. And the community and Justin can come to an agreement which can be coded.
It should have been done earlier indeed. I didn't even realized it could done with a softfork before seing 22.2.
So with your logic:
If you lend me money, with the expectation to be paid back later, but I simply give it away, then I'm good, because you could have demanded to be paid back earlier.
Nice loophole you found there, buddy.
Not a loophole.
The new owner has paid for the acquisition. Do we have a problem? That needs to be resolved with Ned. Too bad he's not around to keep hostage anymore.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. Best of luck in your life with that logic.
I am not taking sides only pointing out that Justin can simply run his own version with his stake intact. It's up to everyone here which version of steem has value.. I'm not a fan of our consensus witnesses and think they act very unprofessional and can't hack it anywhere else in the world of business so I'm more than open to supporting what may be a scumbag that can actually create something valuable with the tech..
Our steem team has floundered, whined, and can't see the forest for the trees.. Why even bother having a conversation with wolf he is like the most duplicitous politically motivated ass clown on steem.
God, I'm really trying to move on from the subject! 😄
My opinion hasn't changed regarding property and the unnecessary use of force, although I see many attempts to make it right-er (as in justifiable) post factum.
Hopefully it all plays out well.
Time will tell, in the meantime it's nice to see others at least questioning the council of freedom and their less than admirable track record.. Mr. Wolf muted me long ago as I was quite vocal in my opposition of his rise to power.. It went against our collective botter judgement.. 🤖 Have to wonder what possessed such an almighty force to mute lil ol having an opinion me.. Wanker
"stake on accounts belonging to Steemit Inc, the company that unfairly mined STEEM in the past and made social contracts to only use those funds for the Steem ecosystem"
Can you show me that contract please @therealwolf ?
There are many different instances where the social contract of using the stake for Steem was defined.
For example, in the 2017 Roadmap (https://steem.com/2017roadmap.pdf)
Here is a video where the social contract is mentioned:
As far as I'm aware, nothing that you've presented is legally binding (wouldn't hold up as a legal contract in court). So, you're essentially admitting that you were putting your trust in Ned that he'd hold true to his words, am I right?
And that justifies sucking all the power away from the new owner of those Steem that he was holding when he made that "social contract", correct?
The way I see it, there's all kinds of risk coming into play with this choice to soft-fork away Steemit's influence on the chain, the biggest of which may not even be the potential legal issues. Steem may never be able to recover from the negative perception of what can easily be perceived as randomly deciding to delete the largest holder's stake. Who would want to invest into that?
That ship sailed long ago my friends