Who gets to decide? You? The witnesses? Or the community?
This whole thing appears like a few people at the top controlling the general narrative because they have all the influence.
What they've done here is simply deny people of their rights because they had the slightest moral reservation about freezing someone's stake. I see no decentralisation in this.
What they've done here is simply deny people of their rights because they had the slightest moral reservation about freezing someone's stake. I see no decentralisation in this.
What silly right are you talking about? So if i and a group of people decide to fork out today what moral obligation do i have to give everyone my token? Do you understand the point of a fork is to move away from steem?
Their right?! That word irks me. Steem and hive are not one. Many when you lot being to understand that the better. What are you saying guy, this makes not sense, i am even trying to rationalise this.
You see no decentralisation? Well thats why the they have steem.
So if i and a group of people decide to fork out today what moral obligation do i have to give everyone my token?
How did you get to choose?
Who decided? The community? Or a few people.
I said 'right', because they still have access to their exact account on the new chain. Why did the token balance change for a few people? Who got to decide?
If you simply cannot understand that all of these decisions were taken without your input, then I'm sorry, you don't know what you're preaching yet.
I said 'right', because they still have access to their exact account on the new chain. Why did the token balance change for a few people? Who got to decide?
Simple: the people who created the new blockchain. And many people support this new blockchain. Those who don't can simply stay back and build on steem. It's that easy.
If you simply cannot understand that all of these decisions were taken without your input, then I'm sorry, you don't know what you're preaching yet.
What's my input? Did I create a new chain? What was my input in bringing about the reality that is HIVE? I have simply chosen between two products--steem and hive. This blockchain was created without your input, steemit decided to mine without your input. You came here, saw the product, liked it and decided to be part of it. What do you understand decentralization to be? Maybe you should start from there.
What's my input? Did I create a new chain? What was my input in bringing about the reality that is HIVE? I have simply chosen between two products--steem and hive.
So, in essence, you do agree that these decisions have been taken without the input of the community (which includes you)?
This decision was made to fork off the community from a tyrant. Yet, this decision has decided to deny a targeted few community members of their stakes on the new chain.
Is the "community" fine with that? Or they simply have "no input" because they didn't fork the chain. Yet they raise the flag of decentralisation up high?
So, in essence, you do agree that these decisions have been taken without the input of the community (which includes you)?
What are you saying this guy? Youre smarter than this. The hive community only existed yesterday, so how in God's name would a consesus be reached about a blockchain that did not exist? How please? What voting parameter would be used and on what blockchain? Prior to yesterday, only a steem community existed, a group of people did not want to be part of that community so they ceded, created a new blockchain. This was a possibility and it was disccused several times. Do you understand the fact that it is not stipulated anywhere that a consensus must be reached before a group cedes? Do you know about bitcoin and its forks like bitcoin cash? Did the general bitcoin community decide to fork? And when the fork happened did every member of the bitcoin community get bitcoin cash?
targeted few community members of their stakes on the new chain.
What in God's name are you saying?! This is freaking insane! Their stake? Did they work for it? Did they buy it? The airdrop was basically an incentive to those who did not vote for the sockpuppets. A simple code. No one was handpicked. Do you even understand what youre talking about?
Is the "community" fine with that?
What community? The steem community or the hive community because if you do not understand that both are different now then there is no point having this discussion.
And before you reply do check the definition of consensus, community and decentralisaton.
Becuaee you fail to understand that consensus doesnt mean every body and a community is basically people with similiar groups and values working towards similiar goals and you also fail to realise that steem and hive are not the same. The earlier you do the better.
What are you saying this guy? Youre smarter than this.
Ad Hominem. That i don't agree with you doesn't make me less smart.
I don't see any way we would agree on this matter because we've been on different paths since the beginning of it. I have always seen the SF 22.2 as a hostile move, you didn't. So, from your perspective, the witnesses are faultless, regardless of what they do at this point.
In my perspective, however, we fucked things up by instigating the hostility. It's like throwing a bomb first into someone's city to see if they'll react. And when they do, we say they're evil, and that we totally knew they had the intent to attack us from the beginning. The logic isn't consistent with the tenets of Peace.
Talking about this exclusion list, It's so much easier to say all you've said in retrospect. A lot of decisions these days have been hasty on here, without the input of the steem/hive community.
And because of that, a community of people would have to prove themselves on why they're worthy to receive a stake in a new blockchain that has their account and content.
Truth is, if we were really focused on recovering the STINC stake, we really wouldn't have minded that there are a few dissenting voices in the community who didn't agree with the common narrative. It would have been up to them to power-down and leave the hive, or be given the option to not be there at all.
You're under the premise that those excluded accounts shouldn't have disagreed with anything at all. Because every single decision we made WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
It's the classic centralized thingy. ''We won't give you a job (even though you're over-qualified) because you did not vote for PDP at all political levels of government. Sure, we know you support a new Nigeria, we also know you don't support censorship. However, you voted for our local government and governorship candidates, but not the president. We're excluding you because of that. And you can swing by the office later to explain why you think you deserve this job.
Consensus is by numbers. The majority. The only reason why the next bitcoin block is added is that the majority of the nodes on the network agree with all the data in that block (creating the longest chain). You talk about a consensus that revolves around a few people. How is that true decentralization? You want decentralization and community decision, let's have this SPS debated on Hive SPS, see what the "majority" of users think about it. That's how you know consensus and decentralization.
Nonso, give it a rest. This is deeper than just codes and consensus. You're dealing with humans. Greed and resentment will always be a factor.
In my perspective, however, we fucked things up by instigating the hostility. It's like throwing a bomb first into someone's city to see if they'll react. And when they do, we say they're evil, and that we totally knew they had the intent to attack us from the beginning. The logic isn't consistent with the tenets of Peace.
Wrong. A decision was made. If you have been around during Town hall meetings you would know that the code was made public a two days before it was implemented on github. You see it as hostility while more than half of community agreed it with. And given the nature of a soft fork which suppose you know, it can be voted against but guess what it never happened. In fact witnesses lost their top spot for not implementing it. You keep talking about the community deciding. The community has decided--major of it. Thats why a hardfork is supported. It's a clear indication of the community decision.
You're under the premise that those excluded accounts shouldn't have disagreed with anything at all. Because every single decision we made WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
Wrong again. No one was excluded for disagreeing. You are excluded because you voted for sockpuppets and centralisation. It was a code, no one was handpick, i am sure you know that. Many of the top consensus witness disagreed with the soft fork but they never voted for sockpuppets witnesses. Even ned who is a major culprit here got airdrops. So it has nothing to do with your opinion but your decision to vote.
It's the classic centralized thingy.
It can never be centralised if decisions are made by more than of person or group. The witnesses are a group people with different views, same with the developers, and users like my self who do not supported the soft fork. If this is centralised, then i put it to you that you dont understand how dpos works. Even the creator of this said platform, Dan, commend this move. Do you know more than the person who created steem? Certainly not. Even if you did, the simple fact that the community and dapps are moving to hive is a clear sign that this decision is supported by the community, or do you have a better explanation? You keep holding on to the witnesses decision to fork but guess what? We are passed that now. You and everyone else have the luxury of choosing where they want to be. If you want hive and you did not get airdrops, sale and buy. It's in the market or appeal for airdrops.
Consensus is by numbers. The majority
Rightly so.
You talk about a consensus that revolves around a few people. How is that true decentralization? You want decentralization and community decision, let's have this SPS debated on Hive SPS, see what the "majority" of users think about it.
I have seen you in countless of discussions with the vast majority of people who support this move. I do not know what clarity you are looking for but i am not sure you will find it. When it comes to consensus there will be the majority and minority. And you fail to realise that this is all voluntary now. You decide where you want to be. Everyone on steem was given an account on hive. That's your voice not your stake. The whole point of the move was to show what mattered more, stake or decentralisation. No one is forcing anyone to dump their steem for hive. If you dont want to be on hive because you did not get airdrops then stay on steem. You have your stake.
Who gets to decide? You? The witnesses? Or the community?
This whole thing appears like a few people at the top controlling the general narrative because they have all the influence.
What they've done here is simply deny people of their rights because they had the slightest moral reservation about freezing someone's stake. I see no decentralisation in this.
What silly right are you talking about? So if i and a group of people decide to fork out today what moral obligation do i have to give everyone my token? Do you understand the point of a fork is to move away from steem?
Their right?! That word irks me. Steem and hive are not one. Many when you lot being to understand that the better. What are you saying guy, this makes not sense, i am even trying to rationalise this.
You see no decentralisation? Well thats why the they have steem.
How did you get to choose?
Who decided? The community? Or a few people.
I said 'right', because they still have access to their exact account on the new chain. Why did the token balance change for a few people? Who got to decide?
If you simply cannot understand that all of these decisions were taken without your input, then I'm sorry, you don't know what you're preaching yet.
Simple: the people who created the new blockchain. And many people support this new blockchain. Those who don't can simply stay back and build on steem. It's that easy.
What's my input? Did I create a new chain? What was my input in bringing about the reality that is HIVE? I have simply chosen between two products--steem and hive. This blockchain was created without your input, steemit decided to mine without your input. You came here, saw the product, liked it and decided to be part of it. What do you understand decentralization to be? Maybe you should start from there.
So, in essence, you do agree that these decisions have been taken without the input of the community (which includes you)?
This decision was made to fork off the community from a tyrant. Yet, this decision has decided to deny a targeted few community members of their stakes on the new chain.
Is the "community" fine with that? Or they simply have "no input" because they didn't fork the chain. Yet they raise the flag of decentralisation up high?
What are you saying this guy? Youre smarter than this. The hive community only existed yesterday, so how in God's name would a consesus be reached about a blockchain that did not exist? How please? What voting parameter would be used and on what blockchain? Prior to yesterday, only a steem community existed, a group of people did not want to be part of that community so they ceded, created a new blockchain. This was a possibility and it was disccused several times. Do you understand the fact that it is not stipulated anywhere that a consensus must be reached before a group cedes? Do you know about bitcoin and its forks like bitcoin cash? Did the general bitcoin community decide to fork? And when the fork happened did every member of the bitcoin community get bitcoin cash?
What in God's name are you saying?! This is freaking insane! Their stake? Did they work for it? Did they buy it? The airdrop was basically an incentive to those who did not vote for the sockpuppets. A simple code. No one was handpicked. Do you even understand what youre talking about?
What community? The steem community or the hive community because if you do not understand that both are different now then there is no point having this discussion.
And before you reply do check the definition of consensus, community and decentralisaton.
Becuaee you fail to understand that consensus doesnt mean every body and a community is basically people with similiar groups and values working towards similiar goals and you also fail to realise that steem and hive are not the same. The earlier you do the better.
Ad Hominem. That i don't agree with you doesn't make me less smart.
I don't see any way we would agree on this matter because we've been on different paths since the beginning of it. I have always seen the SF 22.2 as a hostile move, you didn't. So, from your perspective, the witnesses are faultless, regardless of what they do at this point.
In my perspective, however, we fucked things up by instigating the hostility. It's like throwing a bomb first into someone's city to see if they'll react. And when they do, we say they're evil, and that we totally knew they had the intent to attack us from the beginning. The logic isn't consistent with the tenets of Peace.
Talking about this exclusion list, It's so much easier to say all you've said in retrospect. A lot of decisions these days have been hasty on here, without the input of the steem/hive community.
And because of that, a community of people would have to prove themselves on why they're worthy to receive a stake in a new blockchain that has their account and content.
Truth is, if we were really focused on recovering the STINC stake, we really wouldn't have minded that there are a few dissenting voices in the community who didn't agree with the common narrative. It would have been up to them to power-down and leave the hive, or be given the option to not be there at all.
You're under the premise that those excluded accounts shouldn't have disagreed with anything at all. Because every single decision we made WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
It's the classic centralized thingy. ''We won't give you a job (even though you're over-qualified) because you did not vote for PDP at all political levels of government. Sure, we know you support a new Nigeria, we also know you don't support censorship. However, you voted for our local government and governorship candidates, but not the president. We're excluding you because of that. And you can swing by the office later to explain why you think you deserve this job.
Consensus is by numbers. The majority. The only reason why the next bitcoin block is added is that the majority of the nodes on the network agree with all the data in that block (creating the longest chain). You talk about a consensus that revolves around a few people. How is that true decentralization? You want decentralization and community decision, let's have this SPS debated on Hive SPS, see what the "majority" of users think about it. That's how you know consensus and decentralization.
Nonso, give it a rest. This is deeper than just codes and consensus. You're dealing with humans. Greed and resentment will always be a factor.
I appreciate your composure in the conversation.
Wrong. A decision was made. If you have been around during Town hall meetings you would know that the code was made public a two days before it was implemented on github. You see it as hostility while more than half of community agreed it with. And given the nature of a soft fork which suppose you know, it can be voted against but guess what it never happened. In fact witnesses lost their top spot for not implementing it. You keep talking about the community deciding. The community has decided--major of it. Thats why a hardfork is supported. It's a clear indication of the community decision.
Wrong again. No one was excluded for disagreeing. You are excluded because you voted for sockpuppets and centralisation. It was a code, no one was handpick, i am sure you know that. Many of the top consensus witness disagreed with the soft fork but they never voted for sockpuppets witnesses. Even ned who is a major culprit here got airdrops. So it has nothing to do with your opinion but your decision to vote.
It can never be centralised if decisions are made by more than of person or group. The witnesses are a group people with different views, same with the developers, and users like my self who do not supported the soft fork. If this is centralised, then i put it to you that you dont understand how dpos works. Even the creator of this said platform, Dan, commend this move. Do you know more than the person who created steem? Certainly not. Even if you did, the simple fact that the community and dapps are moving to hive is a clear sign that this decision is supported by the community, or do you have a better explanation? You keep holding on to the witnesses decision to fork but guess what? We are passed that now. You and everyone else have the luxury of choosing where they want to be. If you want hive and you did not get airdrops, sale and buy. It's in the market or appeal for airdrops.
Rightly so.
I have seen you in countless of discussions with the vast majority of people who support this move. I do not know what clarity you are looking for but i am not sure you will find it. When it comes to consensus there will be the majority and minority. And you fail to realise that this is all voluntary now. You decide where you want to be. Everyone on steem was given an account on hive. That's your voice not your stake. The whole point of the move was to show what mattered more, stake or decentralisation. No one is forcing anyone to dump their steem for hive. If you dont want to be on hive because you did not get airdrops then stay on steem. You have your stake.
As soon as you stop replying.