scrobble.life
#hive

Vote for these proposals. We used a strategy negotiated by the Hive Witnesses.

x@cmp2020 (68)2304d

If you are not aware, proposals 101 and 102 discuss returning airdrops to voters who directly voted for 2 Tron witnesses, and voters who were proxied to vote for 2 Tron witnesses.

My father and I, and several of our accounts are in both of these lists:

  • @cmp2020
  • @cmp2020-pb
  • @cub1
  • @remlaps (only direct voter)
  • @remlaps-lite
  • @remlaps1

In this post, I will explain why we voted as we did, how the Hive witnesses negotiated what we did, and implore you to go and vote for proposals 101 and 102.

Why did we vote this way?

We did not vote for centralization as those who made the blacklist have suggested. We voted to try and maintain checks and balances between the Tron witnesses and the Hive witnesses (who were then Steem witnesses). Our thought was that if neither side had 17 representatives, then neither could do harm to the blockchain. In our view, both sides had done wrong.

The hive witness side froze stake out of nowhere in the dead of night without making any efforts to communicate their intentions with the community. This, through a chain of numerous events, is what sparked this whole controversy. We were very frightened at the idea of a group in power who is willing to freeze stake without warning, or consultation with the community.

In similar regards, we were very off-put by the actions of Tron in using the exchanges to overtake the chain. We did not like the precedent that it set, and we viewed it as equally wrong. We also did not like the idea of a few day power down that they attempted to push through, and we considered this a threat to the blockchain.

It was after this point that we began to vote for 5 witnesses from each camp to try to keep either faction from getting full control of the chain, and thereby force the two groups to come to consensus before large changes. This is the very definition of decentralization.

The Korean proxy also voted with this strategy in mind. Even @aggroed said that this was a good compromise. Here is one of his tweets:

image.png

[Note that the Steem (now Hive) witnesses apparently negotiated this compromise and then turned around to punish the Koreans for participating in it. In addition, they punished us for using the same strategy that they negotiated.]

The other 11 we voted for were witnesses who did not freeze stake, or participate in the Tron exchange takeover because we did not particularly want either group in power.

You may disagree about whether or not this strategy is adequate. But I hope we can agree that my father and I did not:

actively contributed to (and publicly declared support for) the centralization of the Steem Blockchain.

We actually actively contributed to (and publicly declared support for) the decentralization of the Steem blockchain using a strategy negotiated by @hiveio's own witnesses.

Conclusion

I am posting this in case any of my followers do not know that we are on the blacklist. I ask you all to vote for proposals 101 and 102. We should not be punished for voting for what we personally thought (and think) was best for the blockchain, and neither should the community of voters who voted through the Korean proxy. We all used a strategy that was negotiated by the witnesses.

Comments · 5

  • @pfunk(73)· 2304d

    Some comments, from my point of view as a Steem witness for 4 years. (not necessarily representative of all witnesses)

    We did not vote for centralization as those who made the blacklist have suggested. We voted to try and maintain checks and balances between the Tron witnesses and the Hive witnesses (who were then Steem witnesses)

    You're saying you didn't vote for centralization but then you say you did. Voting for more than one of the "Tron witnesses", better known as attacking witness accounts was voting for a centralization attack. That is actively contributing to the attack.

    The hive witness side froze stake out of nowhere in the dead of night without making any efforts to communicate their intentions with the community. This, through a chain of numerous events, is what sparked this whole controversy. We were very frightened at the idea of a group in power who is willing to freeze stake without warning, or consultation with the community.

    You mean the real Steem witness "side". The two sides you're talking about are not exactly equivalent. On the one hand there was Justin Sun/Tron, and on the other a loose confederation of community witnesses that rarely agree on anything, especially not unanimously.

    The decision of the witnesses was not taken lightly at all. It was only made because of a continued REFUSAL for Justin Sun to actually talk to anyone. That farce of an AMA with Ned was not talking. Before and after that, him and his lackeys did nothing but give actual Steem community members and witnesses a runaround.

    Had the wider community been consulted, the takeover of Steem would have taken place earlier, and more damage would have been done (as we saw after March 2nd) than simply keeping Stinc stake idle and making it clear that Justin Sun needed to communicate with the witnesses and the community better. In hindsight, his takeover was inevitable whether or not the soft fork to freeze Stinc accounts was implemented. Turns out the real Steem community witnesses were right to take action, after all.

    Justin bought Stinc, NOT Steem. I invite you to read my post made to explain the background and reason that the Stinc stake was frozen here: https://hive.blog/steem/@pfunk/the-case-for-the-temporary-soft-fork

    Anyway, I probably come off as annoyed, and I am with this post which I think is misinformed, but I don't doubt your support for Hive now. And I sympathize with you that despite supporting Hive, you did not get airdropped stake. But if you would like to get an appealed airdrop, to get my vote for that I'd like to see a little better hindsight on your part, because voting for multiple attacking witnesses, you were part of the problem of the Steem blockchain being held hostage.

    Edit: cmp2020 and remlaps are full on with the stincing, sinking ship of Steem. Nevermind those last sentences. Their flawed voting was responsible for not getting airdropped, and their actions since then and since this post was made make it clear they're more interested in Steem than Hive. Hell, @remlaps is even a Steemit collaborator err I mean curator now. They got the Steem they voted for! Why complain they didn't get a Hive airdrop? See my reply to netuoso for more reasons why they can stick to the Steem that they voted for.

  • @netuoso(72)· 2304d

    [Note that the Steem (now Hive) witnesses apparently negotiated this compromise and then turned around to punish the Koreans for participating in it. In addition, they punished us for using the same strategy that they negotiated.]

    This comment shows how mislead and misinformed you are. I was a Steem witness at the time and I didn't agree to any deal that I renegged on. @aggroed is a single person. He does not speak for "the witnesses".

    I will be keeping my vote for proposal #103 and #104.

  • @dhimmel(66)· 2304d

    Didn't realize you and @remlaps were excluded. I would support an individual proposal to reward your airdrop or a proposal combined with other well-intentioned accounts that got excluded.

    I think you clearly described why you voted for Tron witnesses. While I don't think it was the right decision, I think your family contributes greatly to this network and hope you can continue to do so!

  • @onthewayout(62)· 2304d

    In hindsight a more neutral aproach would have been to abstain from voting. Mathematically the result would have been the same. However, given the fact that steemit inc has engaged in:

    • Outright censorship by blocking several users' posts from displaying on the front ends (by modifying the only remaining hivemind node),
    • changing the T&C so that users need permission from them to promote other platforms and/or other users,
    • proposing themelves in their last post to be the sole arbitrer of what constitutes "abuse",
    • freezing the funds of prominent former witnesses.

    Wouldn't you say that the former steem witnesses and most of the community that supported them were correct in that Justin Sun was a threat that needed to be addressed?

    I respect you and your father but I believe that both of you made in error in judgement by voting for Justin Sun who had a track record of promoting centralization and censhorship on the Tron blockchain prior to the acquisition of steemit.

    As for the korean community, they made it clear that they wanted to remove the free downvotes which would make the EIP worthless. To achieve that goal they were willing to go to bed with the devil.

    I will not be voting for proposal 101 or 102, however I will vote for individual or group proposals that exclude outright bad actors.

  • @gadrian(76)· 2304d

    I have been reading your father's posts when we were on Steem and I'm sorry you two got dragged in this mess.

    I doubt either of these proposals will pull through. These so called polls say nothing really, other than pointing fingers at a number of account holders, without a way to analyse things case by case (other than individual proposals, which will never pass).