scrobble.life
#witness-category

Witness Update - Running my own softfork (22.3)

When a super-majority of the top witnesses moved forward with soft fork 22.2 on Sunday, I made it clear that I was opposed to the fork. At the time, I was fairly confident that I would drop out of the top 20 as a result, but I opposed it anyway. Well, here I am :)

Now that I am out of the top 20, I have had some time to reflect - and I still 100% stand by my decision. In my mind, Tron's stake belongs to Tron, and I am fundamentally opposed to forcefully restricting the way they use their stake.

That said, we as a community still have some very serious issues we need to address, including:

Security

Tron acquiring this much stake does pose a very real threat to the security of the blockchain. (I'm not saying they will do it, but doesn't it bother you that they currently have the power to elect 20 new top witnesses and freeze all of your accounts?) It is a HUGE concern to me! Again - I am not trying to paint a picture that this is their intent, but the fact that they could do this is a really big problem.

Autonomy

Whether they plan to follow through with it or not, Tron has publicly expressed plans to do some sort of "token swap". I have absolutely no idea what this actually means (or if it is still even being considered) but the thought of it really scares me. We have spent years of sweat blood and tears building this place. I am not about to throw it all away and just cash in my chips and move to a new blockchain.

Past Agreements

Whether Tron was aware of it or not at the time they purchased Steemit, Inc. - the stake they acquired had strings attached. There are many members in the community who bought into Steem (whether that be with time, money, or both) under the premise that the "ninja mined" stake was to be used for a specific set of purposes. Steemit, Inc. selling it to another company so that their shareholders could profit and then allowing the new owner to do whatever they want with it was not part of that original deal.

Trust

We know very little about Tron's intentions. They say they are here to help, but what grounds do we have to trust them? How do we know they will actually use their stake for the good of Steem, and not just line their own pockets and cannibalize what we have built? How do we know they will not just string us along with roadmaps and plans to "make Steem great" - all the while pillaging whatever they can from the community?

My Views

These are all concerns that stakeholders have contacted me with over the past few days, and I assure you that my "no" vote on the soft fork proposal in no way signifies that I do not care deeply about every one of these issues. These are all things that actually keep me up at night, and I am very intent on finding a path forward to address all of them.

Security

The security aspect of soft fork 22.2 was the one thing that almost convinced me to vote 'yes' for it. At the time, I was faced with a yes or no decision. Support the fork or not. As I stated above, I could not get myself to support the fork due to the fact that it placed restrictions on Tron's accounts that I could not support, in addition to addressing the very real security concerns.

Now that things have calmed down a bit, I realized there is another option that I didn't think of before. I have decided to run my own soft fork that blocks some of the same operations as 22.2, but not all.

My 22.3 soft fork will be blocking:

account_witness_proxy_operation
account_witness_vote_operation

(only)

This means that the rules on my node still allow Tron full access to their funds. My node allows them to do whatever they want with their stake except vote on witnesses.

Technical Note: In the current state, if Tron takes any of the restricted actions on their accounts that my node is not blocking - my node will fork and split from the "longest chain" held by the other witnesses. I am a single witness, and by myself I am not able to overthrow the will of a super-majority consensus (by design).

Now many of you are probably asking - how is blocking witnesses votes ok with you? Isn't that a violation of your principles you just talked about above? Aren't you still "forcing" restrictions on Tron's accounts?

My answer to that is 'no'. Justin from Tron already publicly agreed (on the AMA) that he would not use his stake to vote on witnesses. All I am doing is holding him to his word on something that he already voluntarily agreed to.

With this patch, I am effectively preventing Tron from going back on their word. I have no moral qualm with that.

For those of you who are worried about them just powering down their accounts + transferring their stake in order to get around the security measures placed on their current accounts, please see the Trust section.

Autonomy

To me, the answer to this is simple. If Tron makes moves to dissolve Steem, or use us in a way that is exploitative - we should pack our bags and leave. We are 100% able to split the chain and go off on our own without them. Now that is not my desire or intent, but if they want to try and mess with us - bye, Felicia.

Past Agreements

This is a hairy issue. I get that there are a very wide range of views on this, and I'm accepting that I'm in the minority on this topic. I get that there are a lot of old strings attached to the Steemit stake based on the way that it was acquired and the assurances that were made around it. Even though in my mind they are still valid (you can make a decent 'legal' case to justify that the terms are still in place), I am not going to use my witness pursue a forceful enforcement of those terms.

It is my view however that Tron and Steem have a LOT to gain by coming to a mutually agreed to plan for how Tron will steward these funds going forward. I would like to see them honor the spirit of the original agreement, while at the same time give them the autonomy to decide how they plan to act as a stakeholder with their funds. I plan to try and work with them to come up with a solution that everyone can feel comfortable moving forward with.

Two things that are crucial for me to feel comfortable are: a permanent block on all of their accounts to prevent them from voting on witnesses and SPS proposals, and sufficient transparency to prevent them from circumventing this.

Trust

To me, all of these issues circle back to trust. If we can't trust Tron (our largest stakeholder) to act in our best interests, then we are going to continue spending our energy fighting these battles and building up walls.

Trust is the key that we cannot proceed forward without. If we can't get to a point where we trust each other to work together, then this partnership between our two communities is dead-on-arrival.

Let me make it clear, I am not in any way shape or form saying we should just put our faith in Tron and hope everything magically works out for the best. No. What we need to do is sit down with them and have some very real conversations about how this relationship is going to work, and come to agreements on the issues that are important for both sides.

Agreements mean nothing without ways to enforce them. To the extent possible, we should expect that whatever terms we agree to will be enforced on the blockchain by the witnesses going forward (similar to how I am enforcing the agreement that they already made with regard to witness votes).

Things that can't be enforced directly on chain should have checks and balances in place along with courses of action to take in case of violations.

The discussions that we have with Tron over the next several weeks are going to be crucial. I am very bullish on the potential that exists between a Tron and Steem community partnership, and I think we will be able to do great things together. I am going to work very hard to try and turn this opportunity into the best possible outcome for Steem.

All of that said though, there is no guarantee that this "partnership" will work. If Tron and Steem are just too far apart on key issues and not able to bridge the gap, we will have some difficult decisions to make as a community. I hope I have made my position clear in that I will not be doing anything forceful with Tron's stake, but I also don't need to stick around and support their actions + chain either. The Steem community can fork and leave Tron behind. Let's hope that doesn't happen (and all work as hard as we can for things to work out) but never worry that we are going to be trapped here or forced to stay and live out another four years if nothing is going to get better.

Closing Thoughts

Backup witnesses

There are three backup witnesses that recently have been under-appreciated (IMO), and I want to use my little soap box here to highlight what they are up to.

  • @steempress (run by @howo) has been putting in some serious work to test the SMT hardfork. Stakeholders often complain about how witnesses do not do enough testing prior to hardforks. Here is somebody who is actually putting in a lot of work to ensure the SMT hardfork is bug-free, and he's not even a top 20!
  • @ats-witness (run by @ats-david) is somebody that I have known since my early days as a witness. I find that I disagree with him on pretty much everything, but one thing that I can't dispute is his passion for Steem.
  • @netuoso has been essential to the success of the softfork over the past several weeks. He has provided leadership to a diverse and divided group through a very difficult decision process. He also did the heavy lifting to actually develop the soft fork change.

If you have some extra witness votes, I encourage you to consider voting for these witnesses.

My Witness Statement

Whether you agree with my decision on the soft fork or not, I hope that my actions have at least demonstrated the type of witness that I am. I carefully consider proposed changes, and I will do what I believe is right thing for Steem - even if it is an unpopular decision. If you feel that I am the type of witness you want representing you, I would really appreciate your witness vote!

Looking Ahead

Can you imagine if a stakeholder came and bought millions of dollars worth of Steem with plans to improve the ecosystem and community in order to make their stake go up in value?

The next few weeks will shed some light on what type of new stakeholder just entered our community, but I really hope that we have that new stakeholder in Tron.

If they really are here to make things better, then I think the future looks really bright for Steem!

Comments · 19

  • @asimpleman(46)· 2366d

    but doesn't it bother you that they currently have the power to elect 20 new top witnesses

    Not as much as the bernie group of account running the show. That group of accounts is clearly hostile toward the success of the platform. How anyone can pretend not to see that is beyond me.

  • @arcange(79)· 2369d

    Congratulations @timcliff! Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

    • Comments - Ranked 6 with 64 comments
  • @maxsieg(57)· 2369d

    how would they have with 22.2 the ability to freeze accounts and elect 20 witnesses? 22.2 only froze their stake and therefore they cant do that?

    also if u end up going from the main chain, there will be no one interacting with ur witness anymore since most are using APIs that are using the 22.2 update

  • @eonwarped(70)· 2370d

    I just wanted to say that I approve of your general approach to the situation, though as @inertia mentioned, I also think blocking two ops is not really all that different. In my view, it should be clean split or nothing. These softfork solutions to me just don't have any teeth. Oh, we got Justin to the negotiation table? And we know he wasn't going to each out anyway? Yeah I get there's no trust amongst the witnesses, but that's why I would have opted for preparing for a clean split. (But in reality, I would still probably follow the one Steemit Inc is developing on because they are the only ones with a vision for what changes to make at the moment. Unless they got shuttered, then I would probably go with the new one.)

  • @bluefinstudios(72)· 2370d

    Added @netuoso and @steempress I have had @ats-david for a while now. And I agree, I tend to disagree on some things with him, however, his passion and thoughtfulness is something I have admired for a while now.

  • @steem-ua(64)· 2370d

    Hi @timcliff!

    Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation! Your UA account score is currently 8.498 which ranks you at #14 across all Steem accounts. Your rank has dropped 13 places in the last three days (old rank 1).

    In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 108 contributions, your post is ranked at #1. Congratulations!

    Evaluation of your UA score:
    • Your follower network is great!
    • The readers appreciate your great work!
    • Try to work on user engagement: the more people that interact with you via the comments, the higher your UA score!

    Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

  • @shadowspub(77)· 2370d

    As I was reading through this post and read how you agreed with most of the reasons for the softfork but stopped short of agreeing to implement it.. I wonder if you had thought about the principle applied when a person is in a mental health crisis?

    When they are a threat to themselves or others, temporarily removing their rights and freedoms in order to protect all until the crisis passes? Now, I'm not suggesting Justin is in any kind of mental health crisis but it seems to me the analogy applies to the chain.

    You've identified what could be real threats based on potential intent and decisions made by the largest stakeholder. Maybe that time out on his property rights is needed to avert harm to the community? Time created to work toward a real solution for now and the future.

    I didn't add or remove witness votes based on their support of the softfork. While I have concerns about it, I don't consider them strong enough to want to push back on the decision. (even if it is more symbolic than actual push)

    The decision by all accounts was arrived at through an unprecedented coming together and collaboration of witnesses and stakeholders. I think that is something to be celebrated and I do commend that.

    Having said that, the effort is diminished by the number of top witnesses and stakeholders who chose to drop your witness vote rather than just respecting your right to thoughtfully disagree. It smacks of ganging up and takes away from the good collaborative work that was done.

    Not that doing so would make a wit of difference to their standings, but I've given serious consideration to dropping votes on those who participated in the ganging up. That hasn't been removed from my table

  • @smooth(74)· 2370d

    If we can't get to a point where we trust each other to work together, then this partnership between our two communities is dead-on-arrival

    I am very bullish on the potential that exists between a Tron and Steem community partnership

    All of that said though, there is no guarantee that this "partnership" will work

    For fuck's sake, there is no partnership. Tron bought a company, one with a significant role in the Steem community and ecosystem, but also one with a lot of baggage and strains in its relationship with this community. I don't know if, given the strains in that relationship, Steemit is even in any position to push for a partnership with Tron, even if the people in that organization (regardless of its ownership) wanted to. At best, it would be something they could try to sell.

    At the very least, the amount of clear stakeholder support for this fork (which most would agree with you raises tricky questions and isn't something to be done lightly), should make clear to everyone that your strong bullishness and optimism toward such a partnership is not widely shared and there is a great deal of skepticism, at best, if not outright opposition, surrounding the role of Tron in the Steem blockchain and its future.

    Now, you, Tron, Ned, anyone is free to propose such a partnership to the Steem community and try to build support for it within the Steem community, so that perhaps, eventually, a consensus could build in favor of moving forward with such a partnership. But so far that has not happened, even remotely.

    In no way whatsoever does any sort of partnership "just happen" because Ned saw an opportunity for a quick payday and sold Tron his company. Nor does it "just happen" because Justin proclaims it or hypes it on his twitter account, etc. If the Steem community is going to enter into any sort of partnership with anyone, that will require a decision of the Steem community, and no one else.

  • @enginewitty(78)· 2370d

    This is about the most sane and diplomatic solution I have seen thus far and what sf22.2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN. He did publicly agree he would not vote witnesses and holding him to that is logical. It presents other dangers, sure, but does not limit or infringe upon the values held.

  • @neddykelly(59)· 2370d

    @timcliff thanks mate i've been watching over your posts the last few days and understand your intentions and the heart of the matter. As I know you love being apart of the chain and running as a witness so thanks again.

  • @smooth(74)· 2370d

    In the current state, if Tron takes any of the restricted actions on their accounts that my node is not blocking - my node will fork and split from the "longest chain" held by the other witnesses

    Only briefly. You will rejoin the longest chain after the next round.

    As an aside, I understand why you are doing this but I think it is a pretty bad idea for individual witnesses to make up their own soft fork rules without even any sort of weak consensus with other witnesses. This can easily end up in a situation where there are various conflicting rules, none with a clear majority, and the chain becomes very unstable.

  • @chesatochi(73)· 2370d

    It is always a question to build something better than us and not think for a quick gain in the short term.

  • @arcange(79)· 2371d

    Dear Tim,

    I appreciate and respect your willingness to stick to your values while recognizing the reality of an existing threat to our blockchain.

    Unfortunately, the solution you offer with your HF 22.3 is completely ineffective.

    By only blocking operations related to voting for witnesses, nothing prevents "blocked" accounts from:

    • initiate a powerdown.
    • initiate a powerdown with a route, i.e. liquid STEEM are directly dropped to another account.
    • transfer STEEMs that have become liquid to one or more other "unblocked" accounts
    • transfer STEEMs or to one or more exchanges. In this second case, we can even completely lose track of the funds. These STEEMs can then be sent back anonymously to "dormant" accounts

    Then, nothing prevents them to use the moved stakes to take control of the blockchain. thus reducing all your efforts to nothing.

    This scenario was considered well before the deployment of the soft fork 22.2 and it is for this reason only that the other operations have been added: to avoid leaving security loopholes open.

  • @marki99(62)· 2371d

    Voted for you as witness.

    For those saying that Justin can powerdown and we'll have to hardfork, well if we block his powerdown, he can hardfork anyway.

  • @roelandp(78)· 2371d

    Thanks for your update and outlining your thoughts. Having the limited set of operations blocked as your softfork is running right now has been heavily discussed in the days leading up to #softfork222 however a supermajority agreed that it would set a dangerous potential trigger:

    Running your softfork will just signal to the Steemit Inc Stake key-owner (Tron Foundation) that voting on witnesses is not desired. But per social contract zero-voting, also not content voting is left out. Is that intentional?

    Additionally the supermajority of witnesses running 22.2 agreed to block more operations: By only blocking "vote"-operations like yours is doing would leave a serious leak open: The possibility to start a major powerdown of the stake into a new account. This could for example require a hardfork. And a hardfork means all exchanges need to be aboard for the switch, likely having drastic implications for all Steem users.

    Although the #softfork222 blocked operations for the Steemit Inc Stake related accounts seem harsh, they are the only way to guarantee no abuse (read: actions against the social contracts connected to the stake) can be done with them in the time we wait for talks with Tron Foundation.

    The discussion with Tron Foundation is at 6 March upcoming.

  • @inertia(75)· 2371d

    To me, it's just as bad to block two ops as it is to block twelve. And what's with the deploying changes and announcing it after the fact again?

  • @valued-customer(75)· 2371d

    One thing Tron can do to defuse the situation regarding governance and the competence of their stake to effect it at will is the airdrop to Tron stakeholders that has been mentioned by @justinsunsteemit. While Tron stakeholders might be voting en bloc, that is not the same threat one stakeholder is. Restricting the rights of airdrop recipients does not make sense to me. Frankly, I'd love to see it happen, because even without the Founder's stake, Steem is too centralized.

    In the event Tron does airdrop all or part of it's massive stake, would you be willing to drop your permanent abstention from witness voting on airdropped stake? I do think that would be appropriate.

    Thanks!

  • @berniesanders(77)· 2371d

    You're fucking weak.

    Power down and move along.

  • @witnessnews(2)· 2371d

    This post has been resteemed by @witnessnews.

    Follow @witnessnews to keep up with active witness updates.