In my opinion, the drama should end and the major players here should dialogue and compromise and sort things out. 50/50 Steem/Tron witnesses might be something to think about. The decentralized nature of the chain should be a high priority, of course, but so should scaling up the site for financial gain. Everyone should take their fingers off the trigger:P
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Pick one. Either Sun being half the witnesses or decentralization.
There's no such thing as a 'Tron witness' on the STEEM blockchain. Sure, someone representing Tron can become a witness here, but that makes them a STEEM witness. Someone representing Steemit Inc can become a witness, but that does not make them a 'Steemit witness.' Yabapmatt is not a 'Splinterlands witness'. Dan Larimer could pop back in and fire up a witness, but that would not make him an 'EOS witness'. Catch my drift?
Technically, yes...but did you understand what I meant? Can Tron folks be witnesses side by side with the Steemit folk?
And if the answer to that is NO then Ned surely could have predicted that this sale would be a failure.
At any rate, Sun's shenanigans with the exchanges probably make any union impossible now.
Anyone can come here and be a witness. And if the community votes them into the top 20 LEGITIMATELY, then anyone can be a top twenty witness.
Those sock puppet witnesses currently attempting to take over the top twenty are not PEOPLE. The community would not vote in 20 bots to run the show here. How would you even hold a meeting like what we're listening to here with what some are calling 'Tron witnesses'? You can't. You'd have an easier time convincing a dog to sit than getting any grievances resolved by fake witnesses.
All walks of life, no matter what they believe in, can be a witness here. Then it's up to the community to decide where they stand. Those fake account witnesses can't even tell you what they believe in, because they are not people.
Okay, but to my thinking, this brings up another issue...Why do you think Ned sold to someone/s who don't value the concept of decentralization and apparently; in fact, seem to have the exact opposite stance on governance?
If I owned a blockchain and set it up in a decentralized manner what would compel me to sell it to a centralized authoritarian actor?
I am not Ned's brain. I could try to be Ned's brain. Unfortunately, every time I make an attempt:
...that's all I can come up with.
LOL
:>)
I'll answer my own question: if I owned a company built upon a high-regard for decentralization and wanted to sell it (for whatever reason) I would have insisted on a clause that made sure the new owner also was committed to a decentralized operation. It's like selling a house that you love and you don't want it torn down and turned into condos so you find a buyer who values what you value...
Sentimental value and money are two different things.
as someone that 'didn't go with the flow' and found out what it means to 'piss off the system' ..
i can tell you those 'authoritarian actors' already exist here. berniesanders is one. he silences and basically kicks people off here that he doesn't like.
he doesn't like people with certain opinions.
i'd wager a pretty accurate guess that he is in on it.
anyway.. the war to compromise the blockchain has been going on a long time. it started with the bots..
they changed that not long ago tho.. but they allowed it long before they changed it.. and i later heard berniesanders had influence with ned. what a bunch of shit.
the bots gave them more power than the users as it was a centeralized power that just continues to grow. (they make more than they give)
but.. that doesn't erase things from the block chain.. true censorship isn't possible.
this is a grab for total, complete.. censorship.
I understand your sentiment, but
means majority vote in DPoS. Whatever or whoever that may be at the time
I believe 'legitimately' means:
...and nothing else.