Well look at my wallet transactions, obviously I'm not done onboarding.
Yes I do downvote people who are just leeching rewards for content no one consumes, shocking I know. Enjoy centralizing witness votes.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I have no idea why you think this post is about centralising anything - the majority of witnesses that will be voted for here are lower rank ones who simply share the intent of decentralisation. Claiming that voting for people who support decentralisation is actually centralisation is completely disingenuous and misleading in the extreme. In reality, Blocktrades has massively more stake than I am able to direct here and he votes for you.. So I presume from your totally rational and well thought out comment above that you will be petitioning him to remove his vote from you in order to avoid centralising the witness votes? Awesome!
Many witness votes being concentrated in the decision making of a few = centralizing. Is it too hard to just tell people what to vote instead of making their decision for them? Didn't you guys learn anything from that korean proxy?
Blocktrades having 7 million HP is centralized and that stake being used to vote on witnesses is King Maker level of Centralizaton almost.
2000 people who total have 7 million HP is decentralized and direct Democracy when they all choose to vote.
I dont know how hundreds or thousands of people putting ura soul on proxy is centralizing, it's the definition of Democracy, People voting on something isnt a bad thing.
All I'm saying is there's another layer of trust needed to entrust others with your witness votes, it's not even the same as delegating HP to a curation account. It's about the security of the blockchain. If these guys are this loud about disagreement of rewards, how easy aren't they going to be bought off to vote in a bad actor's favor? There's someone in this thread literally offering 10k USD to blacklist an account from its stake and before you bring up steemit, azircon has purchased his stake, not promised for years it won't be used in governance voting or to invest it in the future of Hive.
Blocktrades has it in his best interest to keep the chain secure because he has the most skin in the game. You guys want someone with close to no skin in the game to have a major witness vote. It's close to irrelenvat right now at times of "peace", but if another Justin Sun were to appear who happens to only need a few more million Hive witness votes after months of powering up anon accounts before making his move, then everyone will be in jeopardy because 1 or 2 people with close to no skin in the game are most likely to sell out and endanger everyone's stake.
That's why we need more inflation on the chain so Hive is spread out to more people. Hive being around 430 million total right now inwould like to see it be over 1 billion in a few years. The more tokens out there the harder it will be to buy enough to control the chain is how I view it.
@edicted has written about needing more inflation I think months ago.
A Justin Sun will be a problem unless we to go POS in the future. That's why Ethereum will be the king when the switch. To take try and take over POS you will get punished and lose your stake, their security mechanism will be world class and almost impossible to take over.
I don't understand how a difference in amount of coins would change literally anything?
There's over 100m unstaked as far as I know, BT has over half of all staked Hive voting for him, more inflation wouldn't change anything as far as I know. What would is getting people to not hold their coins on exchanges and maybe also enable liquid Hive voting for the traders, but maybe to a lower effect than staked ones as they're supposed to have the risk of having their tokens locked if the put the blockchain in danger. A lot of different scenarios here to take into account but it's way past midnight for me to think clearly and deep about all possibilities and what vectors of attack these changes would open.
Very true. Exchanges ate a huge problem as well
He's literally doing what logiczombie did a few weeks ago, it took logiczombie 2 weeks to turn around and become a bad actor using frankbacon's delegation to downvote random legit newcomers.
All in the name of "freedom of speech" and that they'll use it to vote lower witness ranks. It's hard not to see this as anything other than what the korean proxy was attempting to do during the hostile takeover, use it as a bargaining chip to get the best of both worlds.
If ura soul starts a curation trail and then weeks later uses it to downvote I will be against that also
Point is the damage done there is way less than what steem witnesses did to 20m steem that belonged to people.
I am doing what Hive is designed to facilitate and only doing it because I was given a large proxy without asking for it. Since I have been given the power to use wisely, I need to put time into researching and actually using it wisely. As long as I am going to be doing that, I may as well maximise the effort by inviting others to proxy to me.
Everyone who holds HP has skin in the game, but might not have enough time or generate enough value from their smaller stake to do the research and to maintain an up to date witness list. As long as the person doing the proxy voting is on top of the situation, it should actually result in a more secure chain, rather than a less secure chain. How many people still have witness votes set for totally inappropriate characters because they aren't up to date?
If you see me doing malicious or dangerous things with the stake then by all means raise hell. The fact is that you won't find anything more than the occasional restrained downvote from my account over 5 years. No scams, no genuine abuse.. Just a full user guide for Hive, numerous posts helping people, sharing info and generally trying to help shape Hive into a form that can both gain mass acceptance and also solve human problems at the same time.
Arguments against humans organising for shared self interest and common goals needs to be solid, but I don't see any solid arguments here - just clutching at straws.
Blocktrades voting on witnesses is the same thing you are describing at an order of magnitude higher. So anything you are saying here applies to you to a larger scale.
He's one person making his own decisions, which everyone should. It's a stakebased platform, get more stake and make bigger decisions. You're literally taking one weakness of the platform = not having KYC thus no 1 vote 1 user and trying to also concentrate their witness votes now into 1 user doing the decision for everyone trusting them with their witness vote. What your intentions to do with it are doesn't matter, you can change your ideals in 1 block and not everyone will be aware or decide to step out of it in time. Which went really, really bad for a lot of passive stakeholders when the biggest korean proxy tried to use it as leverage to get something both from the community and justin sun. I'm sure you were there and saw it happen so not sure why you'd attempt to do this again. Not that I read the full post but that's what it seems.
Either way, go away. I'm busy.
The proxy systems allows people to make their own decisions, including trusting that other people might have more time/focus available to research the subject than they do. They can easily come and remove the proxy at any moment if it is necessary. People proxying their votes is basically no different to an individual stakeholder voting - it's just that SOME of the thought process is distributed over more brains than just the single brain that would be involved without a proxy.
No, not at all. Not having KYC and not having 1 vote 1 user is essentially why we have DPOS stake weighted voting. This is the system we have, I am not really commenting on it per se - just using it in the same way everyone else is.
My ideals haven't changed in this regard since I was about 5 years old and that is clear to people who follow me and part of why they trust me. In any case, even if I suddenly give you a run for your money and try to be the downvote dominator king, it will be obvious and probably not take long before most people remove any proxy they give. By saying this is a problem you are basically saying that the stakeholders are lazy fools. If this were the case then they would be just as problematic whether they used a proxy or not.
Yes, stake can be misused, that's part of the point here all around. When stake is centralised into large accounts that dictate to the rest of the blockchain via downvote crusades, the community only has limited options to respond. Combining forces is the main one and proxies do that. If you want to go to the cause of the problem here, it is the downvoting patterns, not the community that wants to defend itself and create change. You seem to be totally unaware of how the logic you are using here is contradictory and missing the point over and over again.
Why aren't you building a curation account instead? Why witness votes?
Either way as I said I didn't read the post, just my thoughts on this new movement.
I'm pretty sure most people know I'm not a "downvote dominator king" by now, if downvote receivers weren't behaving like a bunch of dickheads I'd most likely counter downvotes I feel are too big and happening over a longer period of time, as I have been before and am doing now. But hey, it helps your narrative and using my vulgarity against me, so go ahead and best of luck. I'll be busy bringing some actual value to Hive which will hopefully generate content people actually read and may take the time to dispute if it's complete lunacy.