RE: Steem: Softforking, exchanges, security and mining ninjas
"I got an interesting question today concerning this from a member of the Korean community who asked, would the witnesses do the same thing if the Korean community collected 10 million dollars, bought 50 million STEEM and tried to control the witnesses."
"I do not think they would."
As of right now, based on all of the witness chats I've been involved in to date, I can tell you that the answer is a resounding "No."
"buying 50 million STEEM for 10 million is impossible, unless buying the Steemit Inc accounts."
Yes, this is an extremely important point to make. The only way for an entity to acquire that much stake would be to buy it on the open market, which - as you pointed out - would significantly raise the price of STEEM to essentially price most buyers out of the trades or make the purchase so costly that becoming a "bad actor" would amount to a massive risk and potential loss...
Unless they bought it OTC from the Steemit account owners.
And this is precisely one of the problems that makes the stake in question unique and the actions taken against it extraordinary. There is no "slippery slope," as many people keep warning about. As far as I can tell, all witnesses are in agreement that no other accounts or tokens on the Steem blockchain are even close to having the same or even similar criteria as the Steemit stake that had been ninja-mined and that had been publicly earmarked/promised for specific uses by its owners in order to justify the way it was mined.
"The witnesses can essentially do the same thing to any account on the Steem blockchain..."
Yes, this is true. Witnesses can do that. It's part of the DPoS protocols. It's the way the system was intentionally designed.
But it should be noted that after four years, this is the first time that witnesses have ever done it (outside of the time Steemit Inc. did it back in 2016 by controlling the top witnesses with their ninja-mined stake). So it has only occurred twice: once with the ninja-mined stake and once against the ninja-mined stake. And as of right now, that stake has been neutralized in order to ensure that the security/integrity of the blockchain remains intact.
I would very much assume this.
I actually think that the slippery slope would have been to do nothing and wait and see. Once sliding, the potential "switch" would have been flicked and there would be zero anyone could do. This might be somewhat of a bright line, but it keeps the ground level for now until more is known.
It was always possible, people lived under the understanding (illusion) it was not. I think those that should know and might complain about the decision to do it, knew. In my opinion, I would rather accept that it is possible than do my best to avoid it by believing it would never be done. The usage of the consensus in this way should actually bring some peace of mind to some people as it proves that witnesses will make hard decisions when they feel they have to. This is a turning point for the blockchain, and it should be a wakeup call for all witnesses and aspiring witnesses - as well as the relatively "disinterested" community.