Here I thought it was the emergency twitter backup
system. Trump's got backup plans for his backup plans
and he even had Obama implement this one for him.
FTG should consider using the below link on his profile
I guess @freedom already has the witnesses he thinks should be in the top 20, I guess only if one of them lets him down he would vote for another person as witness? OK, here I am assuming @freedom is a person, perhaps the account is just a proxy?
Yes, I was under the impression that freedom is controlled by Steemit Inc.
I bet we could find someone in this list of 30 to boot.
IMO it's pretty exploitative and controlling to even allow an account to vote for 30 people. Seems like a very huge flaw from a decentralization standpoint. I'd like to see 5.
Yes, I was under the impression that freedom is controlled by Steemit Inc.
I'm wondering if you've run across something where Steemit Inc actually claims that account as one of theirs. It's been a while, but ned has denied that he and dan even know who freedom is, let alone control it.
There's another post from the middle of last year where ned again denies knowledge of who freedom is in similar fashion.
Since these posts were old, I was hoping maybe you had some updated information that I just haven't seen, given that the identity of freedom is one of the larger mysteries on STEEM, and that due to the fact that the account controls such an enormous amount of SP, and, via proxy, has great influence over who the Top 20 witnesses are.
No, I have absolutely no evidence as to who controls the @freedom account. I'm just another example of someone vaguely hearing a rumor and assuming it as fact. Either that or I simply saw how much stake @freedom had and assumed Steemit Inc was the only entity capable of owning that much.
I think the real outrage is being able to vote for 30 witnesses. Not only do the big stake holders get to pick all 20 witnesses, but they also get to pick the next 10 so no one can even threaten the top 20? It's absolutely asinine. One account one vote (or even as much as five) would be much more decentralized. If we are going to allow people to vote 30 times with their stake we should at least be able to use those votes as flags so we can drag the witnesses we don't like down.
Well, Ned's lack of transparency is definitely a trust issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how much he has divulged about accounts, or for that matter, how much he should, since anonymity is pretty popular around here. But I do believe that someone somehow should know who everyone is, for a whole host of reasons.
As far as I know, he's not clarified why he's powered down what he has. While it's his stake, I think his position as CEO, and the effect and influence it can have, makes him less of a private citizen and more of a public figure that should divulge more of what he's doing, especially when it's available for everyone to see and then speculate about. It can unduly influence what others do with their stake.
Lack of transparency is one thing. Flat out lying is another, and I think that would have to be the accusation in this case. If you know but don't want to divulge, then you say that. You don't deny knowledge of who the account belongs to.
re: freedom
It's possible freedom is one of the early miners. In some of the articles written they speculate all kinds of things, including a buddy from Bitshares that Dan would know. But since that was also denied (Dan knowing freedom), who knows what connection might exist.
I am in agreement that SP should not be king in all aspects on this platform, and witness voting is primary on that list. I understand the counter argument for stake weighted voting, but with high SP already pretty much in control all across STEEM, what is their check or balance? Other high SP account holders? That's a small group, and I think having some of them lying dormant is not such a bad idea. Plus, I don't think we want them getting together so much.
So, one account, one vote would be great, and maybe limiting the number of witnesses an account can vote for would be better. The question becomes, how to get enough of the community behind it to try to get it implemented. And, then ensure that implementation is followed through with.
So far, the only answer I've heard to that are Oracles, but that's not going to be a near term or immediate fix.
I think you would have included a link to vote him directly. I'm very lazy to navigate and through the witness page.
BTW, I only got to know about him last week as many posts about him and him stepping up to be a witness as were all over Steemit. Many also acknowledge his support and influence to the blockchain. I had a good time reading a lot of these posts.
PS. Reply with a link to vote him or include it on the post above.
Oh, hi again. This is the propaganda department. You're looking for the complaint department. Go back to the elevators and then go left, then right, then right, then left, then left, and it will be the last door on the right, next to the broom closet.
I am sure that getting @fulltimegeek to the top 20 is only a matter of time. With our support, this is sure to happen !!!
ewwwwwwwwww....... *finger on flag trigger
LOLZ That is awesome! He has been moving up nicely. I mean whats not to like about him!
Well, he's a terrible dancer, for one. And he smells a little funny. I could go on but I'll just keep it to myself.
JK- He's actually a fantastic dancer.
Here I thought it was the emergency twitter backup
system. Trump's got backup plans for his backup plans
and he even had Obama implement this one for him.
FTG should consider using the below link on his profile
https://steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=fulltimegeek&approve=1
I've seen at least one other witness use this technique.
It's a noob friendly version of how 2 vote him 4 witness.
I have voted for @fulltimegeek, it will be interesting to see if he can make the top 20 without @freedom vote.
Which really raises the question as to why he wouldn't get a @freedom vote.
I guess @freedom already has the witnesses he thinks should be in the top 20, I guess only if one of them lets him down he would vote for another person as witness? OK, here I am assuming @freedom is a person, perhaps the account is just a proxy?
Yes, I was under the impression that freedom is controlled by Steemit Inc.
I bet we could find someone in this list of 30 to boot.
IMO it's pretty exploitative and controlling to even allow an account to vote for 30 people. Seems like a very huge flaw from a decentralization standpoint. I'd like to see 5.
I certainly can!
Hey, @edicted.
I'm wondering if you've run across something where Steemit Inc actually claims that account as one of theirs. It's been a while, but ned has denied that he and dan even know who freedom is, let alone control it.
The above screenshot comes from this post:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@craig-grant/one-million-steem-disappears-to-pump-the-price-of-steem
It's nearly two years old now.
There's another post from the middle of last year where ned again denies knowledge of who freedom is in similar fashion.
Since these posts were old, I was hoping maybe you had some updated information that I just haven't seen, given that the identity of freedom is one of the larger mysteries on STEEM, and that due to the fact that the account controls such an enormous amount of SP, and, via proxy, has great influence over who the Top 20 witnesses are.
At yet, does he say which accounts he does know about? Did he say why he wanted to power down? @ned's lack of transparency is absolutely unacceptable.
Even Vitalik Buterin is showing the world his wallets.
https://dailyhodl.com/2018/10/10/vitalik-buterin-reveals-how-much-ethereum-eth-he-owns-in-response-to-dr-doom/
No, I have absolutely no evidence as to who controls the @freedom account. I'm just another example of someone vaguely hearing a rumor and assuming it as fact. Either that or I simply saw how much stake @freedom had and assumed Steemit Inc was the only entity capable of owning that much.
I think the real outrage is being able to vote for 30 witnesses. Not only do the big stake holders get to pick all 20 witnesses, but they also get to pick the next 10 so no one can even threaten the top 20? It's absolutely asinine. One account one vote (or even as much as five) would be much more decentralized. If we are going to allow people to vote 30 times with their stake we should at least be able to use those votes as flags so we can drag the witnesses we don't like down.
Oh, okay. I thought I should ask.
Well, Ned's lack of transparency is definitely a trust issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how much he has divulged about accounts, or for that matter, how much he should, since anonymity is pretty popular around here. But I do believe that someone somehow should know who everyone is, for a whole host of reasons.
As far as I know, he's not clarified why he's powered down what he has. While it's his stake, I think his position as CEO, and the effect and influence it can have, makes him less of a private citizen and more of a public figure that should divulge more of what he's doing, especially when it's available for everyone to see and then speculate about. It can unduly influence what others do with their stake.
Lack of transparency is one thing. Flat out lying is another, and I think that would have to be the accusation in this case. If you know but don't want to divulge, then you say that. You don't deny knowledge of who the account belongs to.
re: freedom
It's possible freedom is one of the early miners. In some of the articles written they speculate all kinds of things, including a buddy from Bitshares that Dan would know. But since that was also denied (Dan knowing freedom), who knows what connection might exist.
I am in agreement that SP should not be king in all aspects on this platform, and witness voting is primary on that list. I understand the counter argument for stake weighted voting, but with high SP already pretty much in control all across STEEM, what is their check or balance? Other high SP account holders? That's a small group, and I think having some of them lying dormant is not such a bad idea. Plus, I don't think we want them getting together so much.
So, one account, one vote would be great, and maybe limiting the number of witnesses an account can vote for would be better. The question becomes, how to get enough of the community behind it to try to get it implemented. And, then ensure that implementation is followed through with.
So far, the only answer I've heard to that are Oracles, but that's not going to be a near term or immediate fix.
I approve this message. ;)
Posted using Partiko Android
ha ha good image manipulation
A little worried about @asbear who seems to have gone AWOL. After a 3 week wait my vote for @asbear's has been shifted to @fulltimegeek.
I think you would have included a link to vote him directly. I'm very lazy to navigate and through the witness page.
BTW, I only got to know about him last week as many posts about him and him stepping up to be a witness as were all over Steemit. Many also acknowledge his support and influence to the blockchain. I had a good time reading a lot of these posts.
PS. Reply with a link to vote him or include it on the post above.
Posted using Partiko Android
Oh, hi again. This is the propaganda department. You're looking for the complaint department. Go back to the elevators and then go left, then right, then right, then left, then left, and it will be the last door on the right, next to the broom closet.
"whambulance" Dept checking in. If any assistance is need call 800-stop-crying.
Say what? I think you got things mixed up!
Posted using Partiko Android
Voted! Guess I was just lazy or maybe ignorant to do so on my own. Thank you!
Posted using Partiko Android
Highly rEsteemed!
Not a better option on the ballot. Thanks for your commitment to good content, Dr.