RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated by therealwolf

View this thread on: hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

Viewing a response to: @inertia/q66f9a

steem · @therealwolf · Feb 23 '20

$0.16

I always appreciated your dev know-how, inerta, and even though we seemingly completely disagree on this subject, I still respect you.

> One of the things we could always say about Steem is that it was censorship resistant.

It was never truly censorship resistant, without excluding the Steemit Inc stake. Which was only being done based on good faith and at this point, good faith is sadly not good enough anymore.

There is no way for the community to counter potentially 80m SP in witness voting and that stake wasn't created or bought organically. Now, nobody is saying that Steemit Inc would do that, **but** simply trusting would be foolish.

👍 smooth, pfunk, angelica7, teamsteem

`author`	therealwolf
`permlink`	q66gu7
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.2"}
`created`	2020-02-23 23:20:30
`last_update`	2020-02-23 23:20:30
`depth`	2
`children`	6
`last_payout`	2020-03-01 23:20:30
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.082 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.081 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	649
`author_reputation`	582,208,885,469,814
`root_title`	"Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	95,757,326
`net_rshares`	944,551,967,665
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (4)

voter	rshares	pct
smooth	588,966,072,511	5%
pfunk	335,534,966,564	5%
teamsteem	434,216,524	100%
angelica7	19,616,712,066	100%

@smooth · Feb 24 '20 (edited)

$0.22

> It was never truly censorship resistant, without excluding the Steemit Inc stake. Which was only being done based on good faith and at this point, good faith is sadly not good enough anymore.

QFT

> Now, nobody is saying that Steemit Inc would do that, but simply trusting would be foolish.

Steemit _did_ do that. They went ahead and deployed its stake to vote in all of its own witnesses and force through a hard fork in order to reverse the incompetence of its founders who had their keys stolen (while most if not all of the other responsible large stakeholders were not idiots and did not get their keys stolen). This is documented on the chain. Centralized stake = not decentralized and not censorship-resistant.

👍 anyx

`author`	smooth
`permlink`	q66lig
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.2"}
`created`	2020-02-24 01:01:54
`last_update`	2020-02-24 01:03:48
`depth`	3
`children`	5
`last_payout`	2020-03-02 01:01:54
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.108 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.108 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	721
`author_reputation`	260,342,945,372,716
`root_title`	"Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	95,759,720
`net_rshares`	1,216,512,881,126
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
anyx	0 B		1,216,512,881,126	100%

@freebornangel · Feb 24 '20

Lol, bumbling idiots.

Now my question is who did the coding these two fronted for?

And, did i see a recent account recovery on a high profile account?

properties (22)

`author`	freebornangel
`permlink`	q66tqa
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.2"}
`created`	2020-02-24 03:59:03
`last_update`	2020-02-24 03:59:03
`depth`	4
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2020-03-02 03:59:03
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	152
`author_reputation`	171,005,551,503,977
`root_title`	"Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	95,763,383
`net_rshares`	0

@smooth · Feb 24 '20 (edited)

I saw that too. No idea why.

Dan can code, no one disputes that, and he had a few from the Bitshares team that he dragged over. Doesn't make him not an idiot who lost his keys and pulled out the `steemit` ~~magic wand~~ magic ninja sword for a "do over".

Ned can not code. Maybe a spreadsheet with columns. Maybe.

properties (22)

`author`	smooth
`permlink`	q673xk
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.2"}
`created`	2020-02-24 07:39:27
`last_update`	2020-02-24 09:32:45
`depth`	5
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2020-03-02 07:39:27
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	315
`author_reputation`	260,342,945,372,716
`root_title`	"Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	95,768,002
`net_rshares`	0

1 reply

@inertia · Feb 24 '20

Are we really allowing precedence from HF4 to justify this softfork?

properties (22)

`author`	inertia
`permlink`	q689o1
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"app":"steemit/0.2"}
`created`	2020-02-24 22:40:51
`last_update`	2020-02-24 22:40:51
`depth`	4
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2020-03-02 22:40:51
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	68
`author_reputation`	346,568,901,399,561
`root_title`	"Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	95,793,898
`net_rshares`	0

@smooth · Feb 24 '20

The context is that the historical record is perhaps interesting and relevant as a "by the way" but not all that important because:

> but simply trusting would be foolish

It seems that the stakeholders and witnesses are done being foolish. But mostly you would have to ask them. I can only speak to my little 1%-ish view.

properties (22)