Only the top 20 witnesses need to reach consensus, the communities' input is via stakebased voting for witnesses.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Only the top 20 witnesses need to reach consensus, the communities' input is via stakebased voting for witnesses.
And if high ranking witnesses are taking actions you disagree with, I advise you to remove your vote for them or campaign for yourself or other witnesses.
Adding you back. Thanks for the reminder.
Yes, I literally said if you do not agree with a witness then do not vote for them. That is entirely the point of voting.
If you don't want anyone to vote for a witness, campaign against them or something.
If you think using downvotes is fraud, you need to get off a social platform of any sort quickly. I can only imagine how you must feel when someone doesn't agree with you.
You should follow #informationwar as you may find some people who might upvote you.
I understand that, it's more of a worry regarding the fact that those witnesses and that entire structure itself is merely ignored with changes being implemented without asking the community to discuss and vote first.
I try to vote for witnesses that are engaged with community for that reason, so they at least hear feedback from actual people who use the Dapps and site. They don't have to agree, but being willing to hear it matters.
Star World, do you prefer a democracy or a republic? My question is in reference to what you wrote: "Witnesses should have no say whatsoever in what rules are implemented." My second question is, do you like free markets? It is true that Steem has problems. One of them might be relating to witnesses. Another issue is the downvoting which can be problematic. Now, all of this can be pretty complex. I encourage Steemit, I mean Tron, to mirror free markets and a republic type system as opposed to the potential of mob-ruling democracy, etc.
Are you against the second amendment? Who do you want to help keep your family safe, federal government or you? I prefer local communities over the tyranny and authoritarianism of global government. Do you want government to grow and grow, bigger and bigger? History shows patterns of how people try to take more an more power. But they generally try to do so by pretending to help keep us safe.
In the 1700's, didn't people own canons?