I think we all shared similar sentiments about that meeting. However after Sun's post yesterday, and its bein edited and the subsequent twitter storm, I suspect the time for dialogue is over.
The problem is still of governance. The takeover should not have been possible... This is a much more critical problem., but a real solution would involve a shift of power in the consensus witness positions.
This meeting took place after the Sun post. I think that that post was ill considered and hasty. There are cooler heads that shouldn't be derailed by outrage!
I just read that proposal... We offer under 2 million for something that has a market value of 14 million (tokens only) when he bought it. I'm not sure that will fly!
Edit... My mistake, it is for domains and not the tokens!
Steem actually had that for the first couple months I was here, but just one of the witness slots was reserved for miners. It was not enough to have any meaningful influence on blockchain security. And the mining algorithm was buggy. That's why they disabled it in one of those 2016 hardforks.
Dan claimed that DPoS had proven itself and it wasn't worth the effort to try to debug the problems with mining.
Yes, I had also read that one as well! It has been an interesting time, Ethereum #defi also revealed some broken assumptions... It appears that as crypto gets more use, that some of the original assumptions are being seriously tested and in some cases broken. It is good in a way, these things need to be resolved...
However, I wonder if the original witnesses have much vision beyond reclaiming their spots... A hybrid would also be interesting, but low cap coins like Steem are vulnerable in a pure POW... I wonder if the hybrid is protection enough?
I think this is a balanced perspective. Seeking retribution on the exchanges seems a bit like cutting off our nose to spite our face. I agree that they acted unethically and ideally would sit on a pineapple for 13 weeks, but is it really in our best interest to be antagonistic towards them? Like you suggest, we aren't exactly in the strongest bargaining position here. But then, people are right to be sceptical of the exchanges as to why they haven't immediately started a power down now that they have withdrawn their vote.
Oh, and Sun seems like a Chinese Trump. An immature idiot who somehow got rich.
Thanks... I really think that hot heads have really overestimated out power and are drunk on the seeming success of the past days. I would definitely prefer that they powered down... After all, steem volume isn't really that large in normal times, so a thirteenth of their buildings would be sufficient to cover it... And they could limit withdrawal caps until there is enough.
Oh, and Sun seems like a Chinese Trump. An immature idiot who somehow got rich.
The issue is we veiw Steemit as 'the commons' or some sort of public resource. Even if they own it we still reap the rewards. On the other hand, they feel like they bought it and can pollute our community.
Figuring out blockchain governance has very little precedence, that's why I suggest looking into places like environmental activism or similar things to move forward.
The problem is that we are not decentralised from the viewpoint of governance. We are relying on third party trust in exchanges and whoever owns the steemit stake (or even large stakes like @freedom, @pumpkin or @theycallmedan!).
The fact that we have 30 votes for 20 consensus witnesses means that any one large stake can effectively decide who is there. In many ways we are fortunate that this time it wasn't truly a malicious attack... But this needs to be fixed.
On chain governance (or any transaction for that matter) requires that we don't need to either trust or bind accounts. Which means that we need to find a way (perhaps limited votes that are at least smaller than half the consensus positions) to tweak the dpos model.
However, this will lead to exchanges and possibly steemit having consensus witnesses... And this is the price for a watertight dpos model. Otherwise, we will forever remain vulnerable to attack. However, this also means that fewer of the old witnesses will reclaim their position. We will see who wants to put the Steem blockchain first...
I think one way to describe it is as a 51% attack. It's possible on a lot of blockchains.
DPOS makes it even easier, but it also allows difficult decisions to be made much quicker than on a chain like Bitcoin.
I think there will be a lot of talk on how to improve it later. I just don't like to make decisions when everyone has their guns out.
I think putting the Steem blockchain first is most important. There are quite a few groups that obviously aren't. I think some of them are now waking up to realize they have no future around here after the decisions they made. I really don't think Justin Sun will become their protector :|
Instead of (or in addition to) reducing numbers of votes, I think we should also increase the number of witnesses that participate in the consensus rounds, maybe to 40 or even 100. This whole mess was created because 20 witnesses were able to collude and do a ninja fork that locked the disputed stake. Reducing numbers of votes won't change that.
Despite the claim that their fork was "reversible", reversible doesn't necessarily mean temporary. Based on the prior and subsequent behavior of some of these witnesses, I'm not convinced that Tron would have ever seen that stake again without somehow installing their own slate of witnesses. It only would have taken 4 witnesses to keep it locked in perpetuity.
IMO, the "offsetting penalties" by both of the hostile factions demonstrates a clear need for a larger number of witnesses to be engaged in the decision-making positions.
Actually, I think that is an even better solution! That would definitely avoid the concentration of power... But would it have problems with the lower thresholds?
Of course that means each witness gets less as they verify fewer blocks... But we will see who puts the chain first.
I agree the exchanges have been punished enough and we need to stop that if it is still going on however, I do not trust that they would not interfere again if Justin can spin it once I believe he could do it again.
And you are 100% right about our (steemians & witnesses) situation, it is tenuous at best and it would do us well to remember that in all negotiations going forward.
Yep... I can't believe that a week on... and it is still unresolved. Still, fix the root problem... which is the flawed dPOS implementation... we should have decentralisation rest upon exclusion and hobbling of accounts (including exchanges) that we don't want to join! The game theory should also include the fact that they might want to excercise their stake like any holder of our STEEM tokens!
I think we all shared similar sentiments about that meeting. However after Sun's post yesterday, and its bein edited and the subsequent twitter storm, I suspect the time for dialogue is over.
Also, read this
FIRST DRAFT PROPOSAL
To Tron
Att: Justin Sun
The Steem project should have n... https://steempeak.com/steem/@thecryptodrive/offer-to-purchase-steemit-com-for-custody-of-the-steem-community
The problem is still of governance. The takeover should not have been possible... This is a much more critical problem., but a real solution would involve a shift of power in the consensus witness positions.
This meeting took place after the Sun post. I think that that post was ill considered and hasty. There are cooler heads that shouldn't be derailed by outrage!
I just read that proposal... We offer under 2 million for something that has a market value of 14 million (tokens only) when he bought it. I'm not sure that will fly!
Edit... My mistake, it is for domains and not the tokens!
Saw this on Twitter today: The Steem Takeover and the Coming Proof-of-Stake Crisis. I like their suggestion for a hybrid of proof-of-work + proof-of-stake.
Steem actually had that for the first couple months I was here, but just one of the witness slots was reserved for miners. It was not enough to have any meaningful influence on blockchain security. And the mining algorithm was buggy. That's why they disabled it in one of those 2016 hardforks.
Dan claimed that DPoS had proven itself and it wasn't worth the effort to try to debug the problems with mining.
Yes, I had also read that one as well! It has been an interesting time, Ethereum #defi also revealed some broken assumptions... It appears that as crypto gets more use, that some of the original assumptions are being seriously tested and in some cases broken. It is good in a way, these things need to be resolved...
However, I wonder if the original witnesses have much vision beyond reclaiming their spots... A hybrid would also be interesting, but low cap coins like Steem are vulnerable in a pure POW... I wonder if the hybrid is protection enough?
I think this is a balanced perspective. Seeking retribution on the exchanges seems a bit like cutting off our nose to spite our face. I agree that they acted unethically and ideally would sit on a pineapple for 13 weeks, but is it really in our best interest to be antagonistic towards them? Like you suggest, we aren't exactly in the strongest bargaining position here. But then, people are right to be sceptical of the exchanges as to why they haven't immediately started a power down now that they have withdrawn their vote.
Oh, and Sun seems like a Chinese Trump. An immature idiot who somehow got rich.
Thanks... I really think that hot heads have really overestimated out power and are drunk on the seeming success of the past days. I would definitely prefer that they powered down... After all, steem volume isn't really that large in normal times, so a thirteenth of their buildings would be sufficient to cover it... And they could limit withdrawal caps until there is enough.
Lol, pass... But yes to both!
The issue is we veiw Steemit as 'the commons' or some sort of public resource. Even if they own it we still reap the rewards. On the other hand, they feel like they bought it and can pollute our community.
Figuring out blockchain governance has very little precedence, that's why I suggest looking into places like environmental activism or similar things to move forward.
The problem is that we are not decentralised from the viewpoint of governance. We are relying on third party trust in exchanges and whoever owns the steemit stake (or even large stakes like @freedom, @pumpkin or @theycallmedan!).
The fact that we have 30 votes for 20 consensus witnesses means that any one large stake can effectively decide who is there. In many ways we are fortunate that this time it wasn't truly a malicious attack... But this needs to be fixed.
On chain governance (or any transaction for that matter) requires that we don't need to either trust or bind accounts. Which means that we need to find a way (perhaps limited votes that are at least smaller than half the consensus positions) to tweak the dpos model.
However, this will lead to exchanges and possibly steemit having consensus witnesses... And this is the price for a watertight dpos model. Otherwise, we will forever remain vulnerable to attack. However, this also means that fewer of the old witnesses will reclaim their position. We will see who wants to put the Steem blockchain first...
I think one way to describe it is as a 51% attack. It's possible on a lot of blockchains.
DPOS makes it even easier, but it also allows difficult decisions to be made much quicker than on a chain like Bitcoin.
I think there will be a lot of talk on how to improve it later. I just don't like to make decisions when everyone has their guns out.
I think putting the Steem blockchain first is most important. There are quite a few groups that obviously aren't. I think some of them are now waking up to realize they have no future around here after the decisions they made. I really don't think Justin Sun will become their protector :|
Instead of (or in addition to) reducing numbers of votes, I think we should also increase the number of witnesses that participate in the consensus rounds, maybe to 40 or even 100. This whole mess was created because 20 witnesses were able to collude and do a ninja fork that locked the disputed stake. Reducing numbers of votes won't change that.
Despite the claim that their fork was "reversible", reversible doesn't necessarily mean temporary. Based on the prior and subsequent behavior of some of these witnesses, I'm not convinced that Tron would have ever seen that stake again without somehow installing their own slate of witnesses. It only would have taken 4 witnesses to keep it locked in perpetuity.
IMO, the "offsetting penalties" by both of the hostile factions demonstrates a clear need for a larger number of witnesses to be engaged in the decision-making positions.
Actually, I think that is an even better solution! That would definitely avoid the concentration of power... But would it have problems with the lower thresholds?
Of course that means each witness gets less as they verify fewer blocks... But we will see who puts the chain first.
@bengy,what a wonderful thoughts you have right there..good one from you...
Posted via Steemleo
Thanks... just one person's perspective!
I agree the exchanges have been punished enough and we need to stop that if it is still going on however, I do not trust that they would not interfere again if Justin can spin it once I believe he could do it again.
And you are 100% right about our (steemians & witnesses) situation, it is tenuous at best and it would do us well to remember that in all negotiations going forward.
Have a great weekend @bengy.
🎻
Posted via Steemleo
Yep... I can't believe that a week on... and it is still unresolved. Still, fix the root problem... which is the flawed dPOS implementation... we should have decentralisation rest upon exclusion and hobbling of accounts (including exchanges) that we don't want to join! The game theory should also include the fact that they might want to excercise their stake like any holder of our STEEM tokens!