In terms of the reason I am no longer in the top 20, at the time of the Steem/Hive split - I would not vote in favor of freezing the Steemit, Inc. tokens. I have always maintained the position that witnesses should not be getting in the business of freezing user tokens, unless it was specifically to address an issue of chain security. I knew at the time it would cost me my witness spot, but I was OK "dying" on that hill. My post on the topic is here.
I also created my own version of the fork code that would still allow them access to their tokens, but would prevent them from using them to vote on witnesses. I posted about it here. It was not enough for the stakeholders who wanted to completely "eliminate" the Steemit, Inc. mined stake though, so I've been outside the top 20 since then.
This is exactly why you have been one of my Heroes here since the first day I learned anything about you at all, Tim.
No one can ever say that you are not always willing to stand up for principles and justice even if the justice serves someone or a group of someones who may not deserve it at all in the "eyes of society" -- but who still have rights that need defending.
Folks this is a man who has always been fastidious about freedom, personal property rights, justice for all and not for "just us" and of course, fastidious about having a very clean car interior. (learned during what is still the most legendary blockchain interview ever, and probably still on youtube somewhere recorded for posterity for over half a decade now)
One would think "they" could be rational enough to realize you would be just as stalwart at protecting THEIR assets if the tables were turned and theirs had been at risk in similar fashion but sometimes you really have to wonder about some of what seems to be considered rational around here.
Anyway, you know what Sir? As I understand it, dumb people think smart people are crazy people, and nice guys finish last. So the cliché's indicate the cards are stacked against the best of us sometimes.
What's heroic, is when you know the deck was marked against you, and you played all in anyway.
#LegendsOfTheChain
?
I wouldn't say majority wanted to eliminate it, the reason for the freeze was because they could easily just have withdrawn and vested it on other accounts to circumvent the non-witness voting block on the main account. What transpired after was even worse than anyone could've imagined in terms of security of the chain so I'd say it definitely was an issue of chain security.
Not trying to be rude here but seems you're remembering it quite different.
Hi @acidyo. Nice to hear from you again :) No, not rude. It's a valid question.
A lot was going on back then, and many things seem clearer on the other side of events looking back with hindsight. It is easy to look back now and say that they were clearly bad actors - but at the time all of this was going on they had not shown all their cards yet. There was evidence back then that they had some intention of making things work and working towards mutually beneficial goals. Decisions were made and paths were chosen though, so at this point there are a lot of things that theoretically could have played out differently but we will never know.
In the end I feel like everything worked out for the best, so I'm quite happy with that. Hive as a platform and community has exceeded anything that we would have been able to accomplish if we had not split.
I do remember the events at the time though regarding my own involvement and decision quite clearly. It literally cost me my top witness spot and it was an extremely difficult decision to make at the time.
You can see my quote in the post I made before I was voted out:
"I fully acknowledge and appreciate the severity of the situation, and fully understand why the witnesses running this software have chosen to do so. Personally however, I have chosen NOT to apply the changes to my witness node.
Regardless of the messy situation that got us here, and the very real security risk that Tron currently poses to our chain - I see them as a stakeholder who acquired their stake through a legitimate over-the-counter purchase, and I am not OK forcing restrictions on the way a stakeholder uses their stake."
There was a very clear objective from a lot of the large stakeholders to "eliminate the Steemit Inc Ninja Mined Stake". Not everyone held that view, but it was enough of a factor that it would not have been possible to maintain my top witness spot without supporting that objective.
The alternate fork that I ran on my witness node (link shared above) would have prevented the stake from being used to vote on witnesses. Ironically it would have done nothing to prevent the exchanges from doing so (which is what ultimately took over the chain) but it was a solution for the imminent threat that everyone was worried about. Yes, they could have powered it down and transferred it to another account - but at the time this was only meant to serve as a short-term "band aid" solution until a more diplomatic approach could be sought out, and a power down would have been something that we could have had at least a short amount of time to react to.
One of the other things I was suggesting before I was voted out was:
"We create a fork of Steem (similar to Ethereum vs Ethereum Classic) in a way that voids out the ninja mined stake (or does something with it such as funding the DAO) and we let Tron proceed with the chain they have full control of, and we proceed with a new chain without them."
It wasn't the way I envisioned it at the time I wrote the post, but that's basically what ended up happening in the end. At the time I was hoping we could find a way to all work together, but I had always seen a fork with a new chain as the next best alternative.
Okay, but there was also evidence and discussions about Justin having overthrown Tron's governance in the past to get his code through and that he actively planned to move steem over to tron and it only being a token on the network rather than its own coin which would've make the security of the chain even more questionable.
I'd say that evidence was more prominent than what you mention here
I was someone who at the time welcomed Tron and thought let's do what we can with the cards we were dealt, attempted to ignore his reputation in the space, etc, but when the time came where he'd throw those plans around in interviews and through his exchange, and his spokesperson barely acknowledged our fears of the future of the chain, he didn't give us many options. That said I don't agree with how you stated in the end of the comment that "we" wanted to completely eliminate the ninja-mined stake, if that was the case we would've probably done so when Hive was created. It also paints the picture that everyone who voted for the freeze was out to eliminate a giant supply of the token rather than wanting it to be used as had been made clear by the founders for years but never followed up on.
What it comes down to, in my opinion, is this, he was a sole actor with a lot of stake which he could control the network with, we were many block producers all over the world with different views, morals and visions of decentralization and freedom. Instead of trusting that the bp's who had kept the chain running for years wouldn't just flat out steal/eliminate his stake but demand gov to be left alone and the promise the founders had made with it to be followed, he decided to go on the offensive even harder (yes I admit the freeze was an offensive albeit more defensive move) and overthrow gov in the worst way possible that shook the whole crypto space.
If witnesses had gone through with eliminating the stake it would've caused a huge backlash and potentially ruined the community forever so I don't believe that was ever an option and I personally wouldn't have voted for such code. Similarly I respect your decision to not even vote for the code to freeze the tokens temporarily but again it seems like you're saying that's the sole reason you weren't able to make it back into top20 which looking at @smooth who also stepped down at the time shows that it potentially wasn't just about that. I kept my vote for you for a long time after the fork but I'm a bit hybrid when it comes to voting for witnesses so to me personally it just felt like you weren't around as much any longer as you were back then, not because of you not joining the majority in freezing the stinc stake.
That's kind of the issue I had with your initial comment so just wanted to make my memories of what occurred clear.
Hope you're doing well and to see you more active again at some point!
There is quite a bit to hash out in terms of what happened back then :) Freezing the stake was the first step, but I talked to enough people at the time (top witnesses and large stakeholders) to read between the lines and know that there was never really a plan to let them have their tokens and do as they wish with them (even if they made a "promise" to abstain from governance voting).
I think this quote from you nails it: "wanting it to be used as had been made clear by the founders for years but never followed up on". They purchased tokens legally in an OTK deal from Steemit, Inc. along with the purchase of the company. There was nothing in that purchase agreement that restricted the use of their tokens. Any "loose promises" that were made between the original founders and the community were never communicated to them, and I did not see it as the witnesses role to enforce that pseudo-agreement on a new stakeholder who did not take part in the original agreement and arguably had no knowledge about it at the time they purchased the tokens.
The security of the chain was really the only valid argument that I felt was being made at the time, and I personally did not buy into the train of thought that the token freeze was the only play for that. Whether that was the right or wrong decision on my part is up for debate, but I still feel that it was the right choice for me to make at the time given what I new back then.
You are right though, there were other factors at play. I had a new job and wasn't able to spend as much time keeping up with all the activities as I used to. After I was voted out and I opened up conversations with some of the larger stakeholders about the possibility of getting back in, I could tell it was going to be an uphill battle. Sides had been chosen and I hadn't gone as far as joining the other side (like some of the witnesses at the time did) but I definitely wasn't seeing as being on the "right" side either. Based on everything that was happening at the time I decided it would be best to accept my position as a backup witness and move on with my life.
I'm still quite actively "lurking" and fulfilling what I feel is my role as a backup witness. I keep my node up to date, price feed active and accurate, and monitor the "pulse" of the community for anything important.
Yeah that's the thing though, just because you sell tokens that were unfairly mined (on top of personal stake earned in a similar fashion) doesn't mean you can just ignore the fact and sell them off and put the burden onto a new person.
It is a reason Dan left from what I've understood while Ned attempted to just ignore it and hope stakeholders and witnesses who made decisions based on the promises of how that stake would be used, would just forget about it.
That said ned is the real culprit cause I doubt he mentioned any of this or maybe he did and is the reason why only someone with an already shady reputation was the only one that took the deal.
Oh well, all in all we definitely came out better and whatever collaboration or intentions sun may have had proved to be nothing considering the state of Steem today.
The harm of launching things unfairly and then trying to make up for it with empty promises is definitely something others should avoid. Even if this unfair start made it harder for hive's distribution, there's been plenty of time for curators, buyers and sellers to balance it now.
The further back in history we go, the murkier and darker it gets hehe. I tried to do my own research into what exactly was "promised" and how official it was, and I wasn't really able to turn up much beyond vague statements that were made in places that nobody could actually verify. I have little doubt that some shady stuff happened back then, as well probably when the sale took place. As you said - if Ned didn't mention any of this to the buyer then that by itself is pretty shady, and if he did - well then the fact they knew and didn't honor it is shady too - lol.
All is well that ends well though, and like I said before - I'm pretty happy how everything turned out. I'm still on good terms with everyone that is important to me, even if we don't talk as often as we used to. Even the stakeholders who stopped voting for me I have no hard feelings about. We all made our own decisions at the time for what we thought was best for the chain + community.
With all that said and the ending part of it, I of course can't speak for all witnesses and don't mean to invalidate your thoughts and feelings over their decisions of voting. If you think some purposely didn't give you their vote later on based on your decision with what code to run at the time I also wouldn't necessarily agree with that decision.