Steem Consensus Witness Statement: Code Updated

5개월 전

This statement has been co-authored by the Steem community, which includes witnesses, developers & stakeholders.

image.png

Consensus witnesses are bound by our task to maintain the integrity of the Steem Blockchain.

Fellow Steemians,
With the recent purchase of Steemit Inc by the TRON Foundation, the Steem blockchain obtained a new major stakeholder. As another major player in the decentralized space, the TRON Foundation's interest in the Steem ecosystem has the potential to bring marketing power, resources and other potential benefits to both companies. It is thrilling to think of what will be discovered and shared with this introduction between our two vibrant blockchain communities.

While these opportunities are exciting, in these early stages the most important task for witnesses is to ensure the security of the Steem blockchain. To this end, we have updated to a temporary protective protocol to maintain the status quo currently established in regards to Steemit Inc's stake and it's intended usage. This update is reversible, and is simply to be used to ensure that the security and decentralization of the Steem blockchain remains intact.

Communication on the company acquisition is scattered and conflicting at this time, and we believe it is important to be proactive, rather than risk a possible security threat to the Steem blockchain. Since there are many new developments in the ecosystem, this is an ideal time to take a look at one of our long term impediments to decentralization with the involvement of the entire community, old and new. With this announcement, we're providing a detailed look at this soft fork update, why it was implemented, and how you can get involved as the voices of the Steem community.

What A Soft Fork Is, and What Soft Fork 0.22.2 Does:

A soft fork is a fully reversible code update, which is an excellent way for Steem consensus witnesses to deploy changes for the community to review and give feedback on, which may include changing their witness votes if they do not agree. What is especially important when considering a soft fork is to remember: it does not require any exchange to update their node, and all 0.22 versions running now will continue to operate. A soft fork does not mean that anyone running a backup witness will suddenly disable or necessarily miss blocks!

In general, Soft Fork 0.22.2 and transactions on the Steem blockchain will continue smoothly across the board for everyone with absolutely no change to a majority of the current Steem code. With the soft fork running, if any of the below clearly defined set of transactions happen (it is unlikely that they will), they will not be processed by the consensus witnesses. As there is more community feedback, and the Tron Foundation and Steemit Inc have a better chance to detail their roadmap and their plans for the future, this temporary soft fork can be adjusted to fit whichever direction the future holds for everyone.

Here are the Technical Details of Soft Fork 0.22.2 :

Relevant Accounts

  • misterdelegation
  • steem
  • steemit
  • steemit2
  • steemitadmin

Excluded Operations

  • account_witness_proxy_operation
  • account_witness_vote_operation
  • update_proposal_votes_operation
  • vote_operation
  • withdraw_vesting_operation
  • set_withdraw_vesting_route_operation
  • transfer_operation
  • limit_order_create_operation
  • limit_order_create2_operation
  • transfer_to_vesting_operation
  • transfer_to_savings_operation
  • escrow_transfer_operation

The GitHub repos for comparison and consideration:

Files Changed:

Why Was This Soft Fork Deployed?

With the recent developments for Steemit Inc with the TRON Foundation acquisition, there have been a lot of uncertainties around the company and its continued use of the assets it controls, as well as plans for the future. This makes it an excellent time to return to a long standing situation that has had lasting repercussions for the Steem blockchain: Steemit Inc ninja-mined stake. In an ecosystem where we are moving towards true adoption for decentralized technologies, this large amount of stake, mined at the beginning of the blockchain with an "unfair" advantage, has always been problematic in terms of creating a potential for heavy centralization.

The Steemit Inc ninja-mined stake is a special case, as up to this point it has been clearly declared on many occasions as earmarked solely for the development of the Steem ecosystem, and to be non-voting in governance issues.

There has always been a good-faith trust by the community that this would remain the case into the future. This social contract was defined by Ned in the 2017 roadmap, and has been an important background factor for the Steem ecosystem for many years. With the changes in the company ownership, this is an excellent time to transition the good-faith agreement into a truly trustless one, utilizing blockchain code, and taking further steps to help Steemit Inc support even better decentralization and the development, onboarding, and expansion of the Steem blockchain.

For now, because there has not been a clear declaration from Steemit Inc on the use of this ninja-mined stake, Soft Fork 0.22.2 has been deployed to allow for the entire community to discuss how best to achieve the original goals that this ninja-mined stake exists to support.


This reversible soft fork will not process certain transactions related only to Steemit Inc ninja-mined stake as listed above, and is simply the due diligence required by consensus witnesses in regards to centralization that could have an impact on the integrity of the Steem blockchain. It is very likely that the soft fork code will not impact any transactions at all, and that there will be further announcements from witnesses, community members, Steemit Inc, and the TRON foundation in the near future.

Let's talk about the future of Steem!

We have a vibrant platform (with many front ends) which gives us all the ability to voice our concerns and excitement while discussing topics like this one in a public manner. We encourage you all to do so! No matter if you are a witness, a content creator, a business owner, or new community member — if you feel these actions are not representative of your vision for Steem, be sure to express that and vote for witnesses accordingly. As consensus witnesses were elected to represent you and to uphold the security and integrity of the Steem blockchain, we are here to support everyone in our ecosystem. Please get involved by voicing your thoughts, and using your votes.

All rewards from this post will be sent to @null.

Steem on!

The Steem Consensus Witnesses

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

I fully support and stand by the decision made collectively by the Steem witnesses. It has been a pleasure working together with you all to get this protective soft fork executed and I believe this is clearly in the best interest for all Steemians.

Looking forward to the next steps!

https://steemit.com/steem/@netuoso/steem-protection-soft-fork-0-22-2

Sun's response: https://steemit.com/steemit/@justinsunsteemit/open-letter-to-steem-community

·

Ya I fully support it if all you top witnesses step down now. If you don't it just looks like you are protecting your paycheck, and the possibility of you getting voted out. If you truly believe it was the best move, and really care about the site and steem. You will put any doubt to rest by stepping down. Otherwise you will be just scaring off investors, and making people choose sides.....

·
·

The paycheck you refer to is less than minimum wage. Let's see if you can learn the technical details of running a witness server and executing necessary steps to protect the network on minimum wage. I will wait ...

Just kidding I won't wait because I know you are full of shit, you won't actually do anything, and you are just offended this happened without you being included. Despite the fact that it was done to protect your small investment.

You can ask witnesses to step down all you want. Not sure that's how a voting election works usually but go ahead and give it a shot.

·
·

I'd be shocked if Steem was to attain any big serious investors from this point on unless its sometime in the very very far future. Who wants to put their funds into a project in which can just fork out the power of that investment. Justin Sun purchased his stake fair and square, he deserves to have the power that comes with it.

·

Thank you for truly stepping up in this situation, you were vital and I hope people take notice.

·
·

Thanks Justine. I admit everyone did a lot of work and organized this as an entire team. It truly was a fun experience and one that I know was done with good intentions, thorough testing, and analysis of all possible eventualities.

Until next time!

·
·
·

Are you in the top twenty ?or still trying to get back in?

·

Thanks for stepping up to protect the regular users. I am in the minority but I have a negative view of the situation.
https://steemit.com/steem/@ate-bit-dave/the-sacking-of-steem-the-rise-of-tron

·
·

I won't be watching the video but if you can summarize the points that would be cool.

As far as your negative view of the situation, you are most definitely entitled to that. However, it seems Justin Sun, the guy that actually bought SteemIt, Inc and the stake, does not have a negative view at this moment.

Why would you get more disturbed by what the witnesses did, when it was done to protect your "investment", than the guy that spent upwards of $10M buying SteemIt, Inc?

·
·
·

Well to summarize, I go over some of the history of Justin Sun. I explain why I am against ending the STEEM chain to migrate to TRON would be a bad Idea. It seems that over the past few days with all that has happened. It seems my concerns where warranted.

I had no problem with Justin Buying Steemit, I just didn't want to see the end of the Steem blockchain.

·

Does this open the door for lawsuits?

·
·

Maybe Justin Sun sueing Ned for misrepresentation of what Sun was purchasing. But not for witnesses, no.

·
·
·

And I would love that! 😅😅

·
·
·

lol I Love your enthusiasm.
I am not sure it was such a smart move. Do you know exactly who went along with it and who did not?

·
·
·

You can find the version which each witness is running at:

https://steemian.info/witnesses

If they are showing to be running version 2.22 then it can be assumed they support it.

·
·
·
·

Thanks for the link!

It looks like for now in the top 20 only @timcliff hasn't upgraded yet.

Among the witnesses with a lower rank (from 21 to 40) the following ones are still running an old version (22.1 or even 22.0):

·

Therefore, i've just voted for you as a witness.

Thank you

·

A good precautionary move that has already had a positive effect. Within hours a response by @justinsunsteemit wanting to meet with the top witnesses!
I look forward to positive results!

·
·

You just received DERANGED @blocktrades Keep up the great work. Congrats, you have been gifted 1 DerangedCoin. You can redeem 20 of them for an upvote from the deranged.coin account. Redeem your tokens by sending to deranged.coin through Steem Engine with your post URL in the memo field, view all your tokens at steem-engine.com

We support this conditioned on it being a temporary limitation made until it has been made clear by the new ownership of Steemit Inc how the stake will be used, and where sufficient guarantees has been made to ensure that it will be used as promised.

·

Well said.

My position on the soft fork:

I do support the overall mission that the top witnesses and community/stakeholders are trying to achieve: Finding a way for Steem to progress in a way where the security of our governance and blockchain is not under the constant threat of a single stakeholder.

I however am not running the changes on my witness node. My post along with my explanation can be found here.

·

but has steemit not been ruled by one small group for a long time?
I was seeing a possible future where we get rid of kowtowing witnesses and create a Steem that would change the world forever. You know.......... start distributing Steem and create some growth, get rid of flags and find another option for plagiarism sensible basic honest things - NO MORE FLAGS

·
·

I don’t foresee that in the future, although once/if SMTs launch you may be able to launch a new SMT token that doesn’t allow downvoting.

I support and run this update on my witness @roelandp. It has been an intense 10 days but great worker with a big group of long term Steem stakeholders, consisting of investors, community members, witnesses.

I will issue my own views shortly on my account - but the gist is:

  1. This is a preventive temporarily measure - softfork nonetheless
  2. The Steemit inc stake is a special fund, just like @steem.dao is and should have had been coded with special ruleset long time ago.
  3. Mixed signals from the new owner of the Steemit stake rise the risks in irreversible use of the stake.
  4. Again: this is temporal and done for the s(t)ake of the Steem chain. Your chain, our chain.

I fully support this update and I'm already running it on all my servers. I'm proud we were able to organise this and come to consensus independently of Steemit INC . Historic days :)

·

Wow i do not know, but i know that to me this looks like criminality.
Do we have any decent and how many?

·
·

No. Yes. Many

·
·

Two in the top 20. @timcliff and @anyx are presently not running 2.22.

·
·
·

Think @anyx may have made the switch to 22.2. Hang in there Tim!!! ✌️😎

·
·
·



@ausbitbank you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·
·
·



@berniesanders you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

We are looking forward to seeing the Steem blockchain become an even more decentralized place to develop our interface. We believe these moves can produce a step in the right direction ... the early mined stake of Steemit INC has not been used for 4 years to impact the governance of the chain and it was kept that way as trust based agreement with the community that luckily worked until now, we were always at risk but the risk never came to fruition.
NOW... We feel much more secure with it being a trustless system in the future.

·

It's one thing to prevent the stake from witness voting it's another one to prevent transfers and selling. Even if they did do that, powering down takes 13 weeks which would have given the community 6 or 7 weeks to prepare a countermeasure should they power down, transfer and power back up.

·
·

besides the giving reasoning: a started powerdown could only be stopped either by the keyholder, or a hardfork. A hardfork would be a way more drastic implementation which also requires exchanges to update the software.

·
·

Even ONE week would have a massive effect. Not necessarily unilateral control but still enormous influence, by itself probably in the top 5 stakeholders on the entire platform. It isn't practical or meaningful to talk about non-voting without preventing power down in my opinion.

·
·

Even 6 weeks worth of power down could have massive effects on Steem governance.

·
·
·

Yeah but that's 6 weeks of warning time to prepare for it. You just fired a warning shot and accidentally punctured a hole in their haul, I'm sure that's going to go well.

·
·
·
·

Why? This SF is really just temporary without bad intentions. It's a protective measure, nothing more.

·
·
·
·
·

What is the sunset clause on this? Temporary is just a word until you set an end-point. If you said: "For 3 months until we have time to negotiate terms with the Tron team." That would be one thing but as it stands it might as well be until the heat death of the universe.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Don't forget, witnesses can change their mind or get voted out. If the community doesn't want this protection in place, it won't have it.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

That's exactly what I did. Obviously I'm just a grain of salt so ultimately it doesnt matter

·
·
·
·
·
·

It means "for now", just like Justin Sun said he wouldnt initiate a swap "for now"....

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

A "for now" for a "for now" appears reasonably balanced! ;)

While I was hesitant at first to this idea, the signals that TRON has been sending about the future of Steem and Steemit say to me that the blockchain is under threat from their newly acquired stake and I must support this for the sake of Steem. My witness server is running the updated software from the SteemDevs repository.

I wish for the best outcome both for Steem and its stakeholders, incuding Justin Sun and the TRON Foundation. I look forward to the cooperation between us and hope for the best for TRON as well as the Steem blockchain.

Edit: I have done my best to fill in the context of this collective decision. Please see this post for more details:

The Case For the Temporary Soft Fork

I stepped down as a witness due to concerns over the ongoing time commitment as well as anticipated increase in witness demands connected to this fork and the recent sale of Steemit more broadly.

However, as a stakeholder, I support the actions taken, I am voting for witnesses running the modified code. I believe that firm action to address Steemit's lack of transparency and candor, repeated empty and broken promises, mismanagement, and exploitation of the community should have been taken long ago, though, unfortunately, consensus to do so could never be reached for a variety of reasons. Better late then never, I guess.

·

Is there an easy way to see who has upgraded and who hasn't so people might adjust their witness votes?

Thanks

·
·

0.22.2 is the updated version. Look on https://steemd.com/witnesses

·
·
·

Thanks

Time to reshuffle my votes

·
·

Is there an easy way to see who has upgraded...

https://steemian.info/witnesses

·

Better late then never

Well said, @smooth!

·

Doesn't this look like a form of the Top witnesses just entrenching themselves in the top witness spots?

·
·

Not to me, unless you think that the way to get them out would be with the ninja-mined stake voting. I don't believe that.

No other votes are affected. The top witnesses can be voted out just as easily today as they could two days ago. In fact I would venture to say there has been more movement in and out of the top 20 in the wake of this fork than most times before, but I'm not basing that on real data, just an impression.

·
·
·



@therealwolf you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·
·
·



@aggroed you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

This is an excellent representation of witnesses coming together to ensure the sanctity of the Steem blockchain. We are in full support from all aspects. Running on this version.

·

@smooth shut down his witness today.. Got a free spot. ;)

·

How would you feel if it was your stake which was frozen?

·
·

I appreciate your feelings on this and have had many discussions regarding this subject over the last twenty four hours. I am really sad to loose your Witness vote, but I also appreciate why and everyone has to have their own perspective on what is happening. In fact I just had a very involved discord discussion with @freedompoint who has exactly your feelings in the @innerblocks discord.

·
·
·

For sure! And it is ok that we all have different feelings and opinions ...that's how we find balance! I am glad that this whole thing is getting a rise out of people haha atleast we are all doing something haha

·
·
·

If it is any consolation all witnesses which installed 22.2 have lost my support. It concerns only this issue and is not meant to demean your other great work as a witness.

Something had to be done, yet in my opinion it needed to be something generic and not targetting one account. For exanple requiring 51% of all registered witnesses install a new HF before it becomes the new law. That would make corrupting the top 20 not such an easy thing.

There must be better approaches, yet something that would affect all accounts while protecting the blockchain from STINC's stake would have been my suggestion if the community had been consulted.

·
·
·
·

Does your governor or congressman consult you before making a decision? No
Does your joint chief of staff consult you when there is an immediate threat to your country? No.
Why? because there is no time and because they are responsible, not you.
Then why are you expecting this from the steem witnesses, this is a representative system just like a parlamentary system, not a direct democracy, and you knew this when you got here.

·
·
·



@theycallmedan you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·
·
·



@yabapmatt you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·

Ha! This is much more concise and clear compared to your post yesterday "Thoughts".

·
·
·



@themarkymark you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

This is amazing. Real strength of this chain is shown right here. Gratitude for all the hard work of dedicated witnesses to make this happen and protect the Steem community.

Note—I also would like to see the views of those witnesses who have qualms with how things are being done to make sure there is not overreaction/overextension of limitation going on.

EDIT: Something that concerns me a bit is the "preparing for the worst scenario" mentality. It is possible that Sun and Tron intend to use some of those stakes benevolently in delegation or otherwise. (Actually, looks like they would still be able to delegate.) I know being optimistic is often seen as naivety, but by comparison it is equally imbalanced to expect a negative outcome.

The other quandary that comes up is whether or not this is setting a bad precedent for the future of this chain's politics. Especially in the scenario of substantial appreciation of the token value, I could see a devolution into petty squabbles among factions of witnesses ruining the integrity of the chain and undermining investor's trust in its viability as a store of value.

Self-upvoted for visibility.

·

Delegation takes steem out of your rewards.
It is not a benign act.
It is hostile to every other account.
When whales vote/delegate, we all get less.

·
·

Higher amount of STU rewards does not necessarily mean a greater value if no one uses the platform. Reducing rewards by re-allocating how and to whom they flow can potentially drive the token price upwards.

·
·
·

Higher payouts to authors brings authors.
We've been through this over the entire 4 years of chain history.
Unless those that can suck it all up let more escape, fewer will want to play.
Such is the nature of this crab bucket from the very beginning.

As long as sellers sell for what they can get, the price will only remain low.
It is up to us as a collective to stop voting rewards to those that sell for less than 4usd per steem.
When that happens, steem thrives.

It was good to finally see some coordination to address blockchain security risks. I, @ats-witness, am in full support of the actions taken and have an official statement posted. I invite anyone to read it and leave me comments and I will answer them.

·

You just received DERANGED @ats-david Keep up the great work. Congrats, you have been gifted 1 DerangedCoin. You can redeem 20 of them for an upvote from the deranged.coin account. Redeem your tokens by sending to deranged.coin through Steem Engine with your post URL in the memo field, view all your tokens at steem-engine.com

I am currently supporting this temporary soft fork and have been working with an amazing group of Steem witnesses, community members, and stake holders to come to this point. You can read more about my perspective here: What is property? Is it defined by consensus?

I welcome questions about my perspective and look forward to useful conversations with the Tron Foundation.

I am currently running this soft fork, as a temporary measure.

I would also like to note that this is an instance of network availability (of utility) and that this measure does not affect ownership of property.

·

!SHADE 5 !DERANGED !COFFEE

I like what you said!

·
·



@anyx you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·

I'm not stealing your land but I'm putting a fence all around it and you cannot get in or out.

·
·

These analogies are highly flawed, and different types of property are, frankly, different. Land just sits there and doesn't require anyone else to take action in order for you to use it. Putting up a fence is an action which requires authority.

In this case, witnesses are declining to process certain (hypothetical) transactions because they do not believe, on balance, those transactions are in the best interests of Steem. Stakeholders are free to vote in a different set of witnesses if they disagree with that judgment (and I wouldn't rule out that this may well happen especially once some very large stakeholders have found out about the situation and decided to weigh in on it).

·
·

just for now, to make sure you don't shoot me with your shotgun, yes. But once i'm sure you won't, the fence will come down!

·
·
·

Exactly.
The mental gymnastics employed to justify an unethical decision, shows everything about the character.

·
·

We are talking about ninja-mined and ninja-exited stake here that posed an existential threat to Steem, not land. You are sufficiently smart to see the difference.
And BTW , to talk in your jargon, the NAP was clearly broken by Justin announcing a swap and plans to deprecate the steem chain.

·

You just received DERANGED @anyx Keep up the great work. Congrats, you have been gifted 1 DerangedCoin. You can redeem 20 of them for an upvote from the deranged.coin account. Redeem your tokens by sending to deranged.coin through Steem Engine with your post URL in the memo field, view all your tokens at steem-engine.com

Been a long weekend and discussions before that, @ocd-witness is also fully supporting this update, hoping for the best outcome for both chains and communities.

·
·
·



@acidyo you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·

Thank you @acidyo / @ocdwitness for supporting this update.

PLEASE investigate the Matrix-8 Multi-Level Governance Platform to be, as a potential system of governance for Steem. You can begin to find out about it here: https://steempeak.com/naturalmedicine/@atma.love/why

Namaste
Atma

·

You just received DERANGED @acidyo Keep up the great work. Congrats, you have been gifted 1 DerangedCoin. You can redeem 20 of them for an upvote from the deranged.coin account. Redeem your tokens by sending to deranged.coin through Steem Engine with your post URL in the memo field, view all your tokens at steem-engine.com

Justin bought this stake, and if you want to counter it, buy more steem. Or, at least be consistent and include all ninjamined accounts.

To be clear, Justin's actions and FUD have made me greatly concerned about the future of Steem. But we all knew about the huge Steemit Inc stake and its potential for abuse. This is a stake-based platform, and in doing this, it will set a dangerous precedent in the future of the platform.

·

While everyone recognizes the fact that Justin made a purchase of a company and its holdings, with any merger/acquisition comes a process of due diligence. We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain and its excellent community first and foremost.

·
·

We are responsible for the sanctity of the Steem blockchain

I would argue this soft fork goes against that. This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".

·
·
·

This is a stake based platform, and what this essentially does is says "your stake matters, but don't have too much of it".

That's absolutely misleading. This isn't about an account having too much stake, but rather about the ninja mined stake from Steemit Inc., which was unfairly mined and is now threatening the governance of this system.

Nobody of these Witnesses would just censor an account, because of too much stake. That is absurd and misleading.

·
·
·
·

So why isn't freedom included in this?

·
·
·
·
·

Because he's voted in all of the witnesses who made this decision. Isn't that obvious?

The conflict of interest here is ludicrous.

·
·
·
·
·
·

They just think we're stupid.

·
·
·
·
·
·

That has nothing to do with it. I would have at least expected for you to understand the difference between Steemit Inc and non Steemit Inc stakeholders.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Doesn't this look like the top witnesses just ensuring they will remain the top witnesses?

·
·
·
·
·

He isn't part of Steemit Inc.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I could say he is, and we have no way of proving either way. That's beside the point though; if the problem is ninja-mined stake, selectively picking the biggest one absolutely shows that this is about the amount of stake.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

To be clear, everyone here that did due diligence when investing knows about the ninjamine, and I'm not advocating removing any of the powers that comes along with that stake, just using it as a rhetorical device.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

It's more than selectively picking the biggest one. They've selectively chosen to ignore the ninja-mined stake that is already doing what they're afraid of in favor of blocking one that isn't, while doing things that way accrues financial benefit to themselves.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Its not only about the ninjamine, its about conflicting information, its about clear and open lies, its about broken promises.
If Ned makes a statement that he will not use the ninjamine stake to influence the community consensus, essentially entering into a social contract with us over that stake, then when that stake is sold, that social contract is passed on to Justin.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

If you could prove that freedom was/is part of Steemit then I would argue for it to be included. But as you say, you can't prove this, so I doubt many/any witnesses are going to take action on the basis of nothing but speculation.

·
·
·
·

Then why didn't the witnesses ban the stake BEFORE? If it was illegal and mined improperly, then why wasn't it dealt with many years ago? Why do you not ban the ninja mined stake from others too, ones that support your projects @therealwolf?

·
·
·

This stake is a piece of property that had specific terms of use on it. Take a look at the helpful roadmap link in the post. This mitigation is proposed, written and implemented by a group of people who believe in decentralization and the vision behind Steem building communities like nothing before it first and foremost.

·
·
·
·

So why didn't the fork happen when misterdelegation started delegating steem power, even though that stake was never to be using the reward pool?

Face it, there was no terms with this stake, there was only empty promises, which could have been handled in good faith by declining voting rights.

·
·
·
·
·

Because some people foolishly believed in Ned's good faith as a founder, bought into his continuous stream of empty promises, and others frankly were benefiting from the delegations and preferred to take the route of self-enrichment. That's a pattern that has played out over and over, but it doesn't mean that taking firm action to stop the misuse of the stake and general screwing over of the stakeholders and community at various different junctures wouldn't have been the right decision then, nor that it isn't now.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Now the same people who didn't have the foresight to enforce this "social contract" regarding steemit inc stake are making a seemingly emotional decision based on what might happen. I for one hold the people who have allowed the situation to get here more culpable than something that may happen because a questionable character bought @ned's bags.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

This is a good question. I guess its because we all knew Ned and people normally like to believe that others are honest and are good. Declining voting rights is absolutely something that's a desirable outcome.

·
·
·
·
·



@guiltyparties you have received 5 SHADE from sgt-dan!
View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.


This tip bot is powered by witness untersatz!

·

The elected witnesses made this decision together in the best interest of Steem, and if you want to counter it, remove your votes for those witnesses and take them out of the Top 20.

·

That view obviously has a very good point. And raises the question: is the motive for this action expediency motivated by fear? Does it violate basic principles of what the chain stands for in a "ends justifies the means" fallacy? Or it an example of the valid use of supermajority consensus to protect those very basic principles?

·
·

And this is the important question. Was this a blockchain protecting itself similar to a User Activated Soft Fork or something worse? Either way, the code is temporarily and can easily be changed.

·
·
·

It doesnt matter. The chain put itself over a disrupting and dangerous factor that threatened to dismantle the chain (be that only for PR purposes or not) on day 1...

·

After transcribing his stream I have no interest in giving him any trust.

·
·

I agree, Justin has shown to be less than trustworthy in similar situations. However, this goes against the principles of the platform, and will remove more integrity than this purports to retain.

·
·
·

What good are principles of a platform that no longer exists?

Not saying that those principles have actually been violated (I don’t believe they have), but if your principles guarantee your own death, maybe they aren’t very good?

·
·
·
·

Steem is open source, it's only dead when the community gives up on it.

·
·
·

I think this adds integrity.

Even if you disagree, if you compare TRON to Steem, TRON has 0 integrity as a chain being almost completely owned by Justin, Tron foundation and binance, and it doesnt matter. Take IOTA now, ETC months ago... even BTC years ago.

I fully support this Important update to ensure the security of the Steem blockchain. C-squared is in the process of updating.

Any Hard (or Soft fork) that proposes to fork out any account or limit the actions of an account on the Steem blockchain we will oppose now and in the future and anyone on the Steem blockchain should be able to do with their stake whatever they want.

We would have liked to have seen more communications and talks between Witnesses, Steemit Inc. and the TRON foundation.

·

To be clear, this is a temporary and reversible soft fork.

·

I guess it is time for me to look at my witnesses that are associated with this account. We the end-users and the blockchain itself is being protected by the supporters of this temporary measure.

My witnesses protect the blockchain, when they don't? I find a new witness that will!

·

That's the whole purpose of proof of stake platform.
You weren't invited in a secret slack?

·
·

They were invited, yes.

·

I have a question? As of today I’m not able to access my account from steemit.com but can for other frontends. Is my not accessing my steemit account has something to do with that? I don’t know, just asking cause it’s weird to me. Thanks

·
·

You will have to take that up with steemit.com support. If your account works on other platforms then it isn't a blockchain issue.

·
·
·

And where is that at? Are they in discord? Where in discord?

·
·
·
·

I don't know. Maybe try the #help channel on steem.chat. That still exists, right?

·
·
·
·
·

yeah, steem.chat is still alive and a lot of witnesses and steem lovers are still there ! I still use it and the help channel there is awesome !

·
·
·
·
·
·

Thanks for the info!

I am so glad to see this finally happening. I wish it would have been done about 8 months ago, but regardless this is an excellent move for the integrity of this blockchain.

Relevant Accounts:
misterdelegation
steem
steemit
steemit2
steemitadmin

Excluded Operations:
account_witness_proxy_operation
account_witness_vote_operation

👏👏👏👏👏👏

giphy (3).gif

It was essential to prepare for and preempt any coup style witness voting from the stake acquired by Tron. Given the deafening silence from them on what they plan to do, I think this was the right decision!

I see some in the comments section talk about ownership, and how this decision goes against the spirit of decentralisation.

I'm gonna shout out for the people who gave this place the data that fuels its function. What about the fckn ownership of people's content, and their right to have a say in the platform they have chosen to place their thoughts, dreams and words on? What happens if someone who has had nothing to do with this blockchain's development simply votes in sock puppet witnesses to shift the whole direction of this place somewhere I don't want it to go? I have no option to destroy the content I've published here, so I'm pretty invested in keeping steem developing in a positive direction.

The question of ownership does not only apply to Justin Sun. But I guess my concerns over intellectual property don't count as I'm not a blockchain millionaire!

I truly hope that JS is looking to develop and market steem as a separate blockchain to Tron to grow the value of his stake, and maybe forge partnerships between dapps that are mutually beneficial to both ecosystems.

But we don't know anything at the moment, and silence is unsettling.

I fully support these measures, until a statement of intention and maybe a contract can be drawn up between Tron foundation and the community represented by consensus witnesses.

I'm hoping for a decentralised partnership between Tron and Steem, so that together both blockchain communities can become greater than the sum of their parts!

·

I wouldn't describe it as silence, instead a bunch of vague mixed messages that seem to follow the theme of the initial announcement.

·
·

I was in the AMA and since then I've seen nothing other than Justin Sun's origonal tweet about how he wants all steem dapps to migrate to Tron, and a token swap.

instead a bunch of vague mixed messages that seem to follow the theme of the initial announcement.

Fair point, but mixed signals are hardly reassuring. Granted he back tracked on the token swap idea in the dlive ama, but since then silence apart from an introduction on steem that said very little about his plans for steemit.inc. One of my worries now is that he's planning on ditching SMT's in favour of pushing Tron tokens as an option for communities, which would water down the potential value of steem tokens moving into the bull market. SMT's have the potential to catapult steem back into top ten market cap if they're successful coupled with communities, especially in a bull market.

While it's possible I've missed something somewhere, I do follow Tron foundation on twitter so would have thought I'd catch an update.

To be fair that tweet I mentioned was pretty damning from a content producers perspective. Especially someone like myself who has powered up 90% of their earnings over 2 and a half years and, until now, has had no interest in Tron.

Not to mention the fact that steem token is still worth 10x Trons value in dollars. I know that they've got a much bigger market cap etc but if steem tokens we're to be migrated to Tron in some type of swap airdrop tomorrow, I'm pretty sure we'd all lose value while Tron airdrop recipients got a windfall of free money.

It's these types of concern that make me feel this extreme softfork is necessary, coupled with JS history in regards to voting with his stake in governance issues on Tron.

As a stakeholder and activist, I am good with this. Thank you!

At first look, my reaction is that witnesses have gone mad. While I understand the reasoning behind this, I think it is an extreme measure that undermines the blockchain integrity. Once acquisition happened those stakes were no longer ninja-minded.

If this is a negotiation tactic to bring the other side to table to work out a mutually beneficial and long term solution, I think it is smart.

I don’t think this is a good permanent solution. Sounds like “we were scared of a hostile take over, so let’s attack first”.

Let the power battles begin!

·

Once acquisition happened those stakes were no longer ninja-minded

Sorry I can't agree on this point, particularly in so far as the transaction was described as acquisition of the company. I fail to see how the identity of the sharesholders of a company, or a change in the list of shareholders, changes anything about a particular block of stake that was ninja mined to support development of the ecosystem.

If the stake alone was sold (not that there is any evidence of this), then I would think either there would or should have been disclosure of any baggage associated with the asset (whether legal, reputational, unrealized risks, or pertaining to strategic business considerations surrounding the use of the asset). If not then it seems like something for the parties to the sale to work out.

·

Once acquisition happened those stakes were no longer ninja-minded.

Seems like essentially if you do something bad, its ok as long as you sell it off.

If I steal a car and sell it to someone, they get to keep that car regardless of what the true owner says?

·
·

If this was really something bad, witnesses should have taken these measures long time ago. Inaction has legitimized the stakes long tine ago. Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything. Witnesses didn’t do anything then either. So justifying these measures with claims of “ninja-mine” are not reasonable. These stakes are fully paid for.

I expect a fight back to protect their investment. Hopefully mutually beneficial resolution will be reached.

I share the concerns of potential hostile take over, but I don’t think keeping funds hostage is a good way to achieve any fruitful results.

·
·
·

Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything

So now we are going to pick and choose which things Ned said we decide to decide are important and which are not? And we're going to do so by selectively quoting the ones that are most self-serving to Ned? I don't think so.

I agree action should have been taken long ago. I also see incremental reasons to take action now. The straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.

·
·
·

"Ned himself said they Steemit Inc do not owe anybody anything."

I don't give a damn what the guilty party has to say. It makes 0 sense that you would.

Stinc stake was never legitimized, simply tolerated to a point.
If it was legitimized Ned wouldn't have hidden millions of steem in exchanges.
He knew he had to run.

Witness inaction at that time doesn't mean anything except that they were lazy and inert when they shouldn't have been so.

·
·
·
·

Witness inaction at that time doesn't mean anything except that they were lazy and inert when they shouldn't have been so.

Personally, I foolishly wanted to believe that Ned had at least some interest in ensuring the success of Steem. He co-founded the thing after all. I think many people had a similar opinion.

When Ned showed that we were indeed fools for trusting him, and that our hope was useless, it was clear it was time to take action. I agree this should have been done long ago, but it was done today.

If it didn't happen today, the same thing would be said in the future about it should of having been done sooner or that witnesses were just lazy.

·
·
·
·

There is no legally binding document or protocol-based evidence Inc stakes belong to the community. Some announcements of roadmaps or blogposts of a companies intentions don't mean anything. Companies, especially startups pivot all the time.

Most importantly I don't like witnesses acting as a central bank and taking measures that affect the funds, regardless whose they are. I hope this is just a negotiating tactic and produce some meaningful results without diminishing the confidence on the chain.

·
·
·
·
·

Pivoting, once you have given your word, is called lying where i grew up.

No doubt ned was not reliable.
Anybody that can tolerate associating with that kind of energy is suspect, imo.
Doubly so when it pronounces the demise of three years of my work.

I don't much like this, either, but i would rather see js prosecute ned for fraud than to allow ned's lies to wreck the chain.
Which may be the intended outcome.
He's got his ball and has gone away.

·
·
·
·
·

Well, is thats your approach, there is no legally binding document that says that the witnesses cant do this soft fork either....
Wanna play hard ball? it goes both ways.

·
·
·
·
·
·

lol, expressing an opinion is playing “hard ball”?

My reservations are very simple, all funds should be safe and secure for the chain to be reliable.

I don’t have a strong position one way or the other. Just trying to make sense of things. As I read other comments I am learning more.

Feel free to play ball elsewhere. :)

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I wasn't referring to you lady, but to Justin Sun, we can either play the game in a moral and ethical dimension or a legalistic one.
What Im saying is that you are denoting any other agreements that are not legally binding documents as invalid and irrelevant, and if thats the case, then why should the witnesses follow anything but strictly legally binding contracts?
See my point now?

·
·

Your argument makes no sense because no one said the ninja mine is okay. When it is sold, then the bad action has been done. Ninja mine for profit = bad.

But the person who bought the stake is not responsible for the actions of the previous holder of that stake.

If I sold you 1000 Steem and was abusing my stake, upvoting myself 10 times a day, does that mean that you should now be downvoted by spam preventers?

And to answer your car example, if the car was sold illegally, then yes, it still belongs to the original owner. However, if the transaction was completely legal, then it belongs to the buyer. Other problems are not his to deal with.

Tron acquired their stake fairly.

·
·
·

You're mistaken about how stolen property works, though that analogy is so strained as to be entirely irrelevant here.

But as a matter of trivia (and so you are better informed), in fact if property is stolen then even a 'legitimate' buyer has to give it back to the rightful owner and then get a refund from the seller.

·
·
·

What Netouso said is 100% correct. You even have laws in place for this exact thing.
The person who bought the stake doesnt get to keep the stake no string attached. If he has a problem, Ned is the person he should get reparations from..

·
·
·

You have a very strange definition of fairness, and that stake came with strings attached, it swapping hands makes no difference, the strings are still attached.

·

"...those stakes were no longer ninja-minded."

This is true. The Steem community has been, as @starkerz noted recently, quite naive, lulled into trust by @ned's lack of pecuniary intent and avarice. This is a trustless platform, or should be. The founder's stake has continuously been claimed as solely intended for use by development initiatives, and this verbal (written) allegation has sufficed to preclude concerns of it being deployed to centralize governance of Steem.

However, that threat has always existed, mostly due to the 30x multiplication of the influence of substantial hodlings of stake over the witnesses. It is this mechanism that made of the founder's stake a centralizing threat. As long as the substantial stakeholders could trust @ned not to use that stake, their influence on governance was dramatically increased, and they clearly benefited from this.

This temporary solution but points to the need a decentralized trustless platform has to prevent concentration of influence on governance through code that enables some stake to wield more influence than other stake. Eliminating the 30x multiplication of the influence of substantial stake on governance eliminates any threat of @justinsunsteemit, or heirs, beneficiaries, or assigns to exercise instant governance of Steem. It also makes all Steem equally influential, from large or small stakeholders, in witness elections.

1 Steem = 1 witness vote is the fair and equitable way to solve the problem temporarily mitigated by this soft fork, as well as the undue influence that has heretofore inured to large stakeholders over the majority of the community.

·
·

I think other measures like significantly decreasing amount of witness votes an account can cast would produce better results and further decentralize the chain.

·
·
·

Some users have tens of thousands of accounts. How much does limiting the number of witness votes they can cast per account affect them? Sock puppets will get around any limitation on witness votes per account, to greater or lesser degree depending on how limited witness votes are.

If you reduce the number of witness votes an account can cast to one, @justinsunsteemit can spread his stake to 20 accounts and replace the consensus witnesses at will.

Frankly, equity really demands 1 steem = 1 witness vote, and you can see how the present system is inequitable and centralizes governance now if you read this.

·
·
·
·

It would still be based on SP you have. Instead of having an ability to vote for 30 witnesses it would be less, maybe like 10. So that one stakeholder can’t decide who all consensus witnesses are.

·
·
·
·
·

I don't think you grasp that splitting your stake across multiple accounts causes the limitation on witness votes to be split across the accounts as well. It's true that it would reduce the amount of stake each account could vote with, but the ~75M Steem is still enough split 20 ways to be a deciding factor in consensus witness elections.

Consider this as well. If one stakeholder has 1M Steem each witness vote cast is for 1M Steem, meaning that stakeholder applies 30M Steem worth of influence on the witnesses. Another stakeholder has 10 Steem, and each vote for witness they cast is worth 10 Steem, meaning they deploy 300 Steem worth of influence on the witnesses. The difference in influence on governance between the two stakeholders is not 999,990 Steem, but 29,999,700 Steem. This is how the current witness election mechanism effects centralization of governance by multiplying the influence of substantial stakeholders 30x.

I reckon influence on the witnesses should be equitable, and 1 Steem = 1 witness vote increases decentralization of governance of the blockchain 30x from current conditions.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I think we are on the same page. We both want to see decreased amount of witnesses votes per account. Your idea is basically to lower to 1 vote per account, still based on Steem/SP you have. It makes sense. I like it. Not an easy task to convince the witnesses.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I find that nothing worth doing is ever easy.

·
·
·
·
·

No matter what rules you come up with someone with 150% as much stake as all the other voting stake put together is going to be overwhelmingly dominant to the point of breaking all hope of decentralization.

There are some limited mitigations possible, which carry security tradeoffs (since you are, in effect, deliberately enabling a minority which you can't know is "good" or "bad" in any instance) but they're partial at best.

·
·
·
·
·

you are not listening, reducing the amount of witnesses an account can vote would have no effect in this situation, Justin could just spread the 80 million steem in several accounts, do you understand this or do you need a further explanation?

·
·
·
·
·
·

For example limit the votes amount to 7. Now show me how you can spread 80mil sp to take over the chain. Consensus is 17, you need to split 80 mil into 3, which is 26.6 mil each and not enough to vote in all 17 consensus witnesses.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Aha, ok, you vote in a fraction of the 17 witnesses that are needed for consensus, say 12? Then how is consensus achieved without the approval of those 12 witnesses? ;)

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You spread your 7 votes from the 73 million SP across an overlapping mix of 17 witnesses, which is 30 million each. That's probably more than enough. Currently top witnesses get around 45 million but that is with everyone having 30 votes as well. If you drop the 30 to 7, then the other witnesses' vote totals will drop too. If we, probably conservatively, estimate that totals drop by half, then totals are down to 22 million, and 30 million is easily in control.

If somehow that isn't enough, which I doubt, then you buy a small amount of STEEM to net up the total, campaign and count on at least a few people always being easily swayed to anything or confused, and/or you offer a few people to pay for their votes. It won't be hard to get what you need, even if this means the rest of the stakeholders are voting, say, 90% against you.

No plausible voting rules are going to contain 71% of the active voting stake from taking control. It won't happen. (And if you could, it would greatly weaken the chain by allowing small minority, potentially attacker, stakes to exert greater influence).

Those are some fucking balls on you guys. Took you a while but i cant be more proud. Hope you dont let up and i hope that the words of us from the community had at least a small effect on this decision.

Time for negotiations
with SteemiTron on equal-footing. The witnesses have spoken.

·

That's a good point. This creates a more level negotiation between equals.

First!

good moment to pick few witnesses to vote on :)

Excellent approach, thanks to the witness community!

This is getting interesting. Waiting for some users' comments

·

And here you have a user comment. I salute the consensus witnesses for making a hard choice to protect Our Blockchain.

I understand the reasoning of the dissenters, but this action was needed and prompted by the mixed messages coming from Justin Sun. I am sure that it was a very difficult decision to make, but a necessary temporary measure until we know what in the hell is going on!

As a user and small stakeholder in the STEEM ecosystem, I am in full support of this action as long as it is a temporary one. Ned is the villain here, no one else to include Justin Sun. Hopefully, this all gets sorted out.

That's great news in times of total silence from Tron Foundation and Justin Sun. I hope that this update will ensure Steem's decentralisation further into the future and promise to readjust my witnesses votes as of tomorrow. Glad to see Consensus and community related actions.
Thank you all.

For who is reading: We are discussing the Soft Fork NOW at minnowpond.org / the PALnet server.

·

Make sure to mention who broke the NAP first ;)

Well, this is going to get interesting.
Never a dull moment.... :)

·

Lol, lots of unexpected developments recently!

·
·

With every blink :D

·
·
·

I mean, Steem has never exactly been a stranger to drama—to say the least— but recently it's been extra crazy!

I am nobody. Small fish, no importance. But I don't like this. I understand the witnesses/big money are afraid of losing their power, but changing the rules and locking a guy out seems to me to be wrong.

He bought his SP just like everyone else did, and now he is excluded because you're afraid of how he might vote it. Its bad karma.

"First they came for your neighbor, then they come for you".

Like I said, I'm nothing. But frankly, I'm even more disgusted with Steemit by the way people are acting on this issue. I will never forget this lesson and I'm sure it will taint the chain forever (or as long as it lasts).

·

He bought his SP just like everyone else did

Really? Who else bought a massive, consensus-breaking block of ninja-mined stake from Steemit Inc?

No one.

·
·