If you cannot vote for the party of your choice without consequences from people who govern you, then you're already in the thick of it. What happens if you have to become the CCP to avoid becoming the CCP?
Witnesses on the new blockchain showed discrimination towards 300 people on HIVE that voted for "unapproved witnesses" on Steem, this was done by excluding them from the airdrop. What guarantees do I have that I won't be dealt with similarly based on who I vote for as a witness on HIVE?
Steem users tried to create a social contract with STINC regarding how the ninja mine would get used. Are witnesses on the new blockchain and token prepared to offer any guarantees that protect both the sanctity of an individual's vote as well as their stake?
It was one thing to exclude the blatant sockpuppets and STINC related accounts with ninja mined tokens. However, it was another thing entirely to exclude HIVEians that were not voting with ninja mined stake. To distill this even further, should HIVEians be entitled to equal distribution of their stake on the new chain just like everyone else, or should they get penalized based on how they voted on another blockchain?
If we penalize these folks by not including them equally in the distribution based on their stake in the old chain, what does that tell us about the sanctity of individual HIVEian votes in the new chain? Now that the ninja mine is effectively neutralized (probably should have gotten nulled instead,) are any witnesses willing to publish a pledge on the blockchain that they won't run code that discriminates against legitimate stakeholders?
We learned that a lot of things can happen, which ought not to happen, because of the whole Ned/Justin saga. Four of the main ones that stand out in my mind are ninja mining, asset freezing via soft-forks, exchange colluding, and excluding regular stakeholders from the airdrop. It seems to me that all these shady things that can happen on a blockchain paves the way to an uncertain future.
As far as I can tell, @dhimmel's (DO NOTHING) solution could have worked if Justin had hijacked the chain. Had the community proceed to take this path, it would have negated the need to freeze stakeholder assets. The fork to HIVE would have been protective instead of hostile, and there would be no need to exclude 300 HIVEian's from the airdrop. Additionally, the ninja mine could have been nulled. That's minus 3 of the 4 mistakes right there, leaving the one remaining mistake, and that's in Justin's column.
Perhaps if his stake were not frozen; he may not have colluded with exchanges at all. That would bring it down to zero mistakes until he tried to break decentralization. Then we would have had a legitimate reason to fork and exclude both STINC and their socks by choosing decentralization over dPoS, but I think we still need to leave legitimate dPoS dissent in there or else the entire act of voting looks like a sham.
The community can still rectify the mistake of excluding 300 HIVEians from the airdrop. By doing so, it would prove that people have the right to vote for whomever they choose without fear that the top witnesses will take hostile actions against their accounts in the future. I think this would go a long way towards starting off on the right foot.
The onus is on the witnesses to fix the trust that was broken here. Until this problem is fixed, I won't be voting for any witnesses with my measly stake. If you've made it this far and agree with me, then perhaps you will join me in this effortless yet meaningful endeavor.
Aside from the effort that I put into this post, it's relatively effortless for any HIVEian to not vote for witnesses until they correct the mistake. With regards to the meaningful endeavor portion, that's only meaningful if you believe in free and fair elections, elections where individual voters are not discriminated against because of how they choose to vote.
I was being glib.
But you know what, You have valid points.
We have seen what happens with knee jerk reactions. I myself am waiting to see if any changes are going to be made on the witness selection front, primarily the removal of non-active accounts votes counting for a witness vote. So I fully believe that at minimum all witness votes need to be redone every 6 months, that the account holders need to re-affirm their choice/selection of witness. If they fail to renew at the six month period then they must wait 60 days before they are allowed to vote for witnesses again. The six month period would start from the day the witness selection is made, so no excuses I was on vacation, if a person expects to be gone for a little bit and want their witness vote to count all they have to do is re-vote their choice before going on hiatus or being gone for a bit.
Right now we are just finishing week one up on the new chain, I will let my proxy continue for a bit, but I do hope to see some talk in a month at least of ideas on re-vamping the witness selection process.
If you use peakd make a list and add all the witnesses that you run across posting and who's post you read, then when the talk gets going you have a very handy feed to see what they have been doing. (I like the List Function on peakd)
If we ever get to the point where dissenting opinions of regular stakeholders are not penalized, I would be in favor of an idea similar to yours where witness votes expire after an allotted amount of time. Unfortunately, the very first thing someone would do is make a dApp for that, making the plan not entirely foolproof. Perhaps the blockchain would need to incorporate some kind of image dealio that will test if you are human before a voting session expiration. Thanks for sharing your ideas @badshadow!
HIVE is a new chain. It's start was not via mining, but via a fork and an airdrop.
Noone has a right to a new token.
If you want HIVE, buy HIVE as you've bought STEEM. :)
Still, I'm for a big re-election of witnesses-
Hey @luegenbaron, thx for commenting!
Those 300 HIVEians, in particular, are they less equal, or should they get fewer rights because of who they voted for as a witness (or proxy) on a completely different chain? A chain that has nothing to do with HIVE? Is voting even real if you have to vote in a prescribed manner? If not, we could simply end the charade by having the top 20 witnesses enact a hard fork that automatically proxies everyone's witness vote to a designated account that'll vote them in as witnesses permanently. In my mind witness voting is either real and meaningful or as fugazi as Justin's sock witnesses were.
Steem has much to do with HIVE, as said, HIVE forked AWAY FROM STEEM.
They didnt use Mining, but an airdrop as starting distribution. Without fork this would not have been possible.
The ones who start a new fork/ chain can decide how they wanna distribute.
If you don't like it. Don't give them ur consens and don't use this new chain.
Still noone has a right to any new token or coin.
As already said I'm for a big reelection of witnesses. I'm even for a new government system. I'd like to have capitalism (maybe a betting market) instead of plutocracy.
Greets :)
Can I ask you why you got HIVE, did you have a right,
or did you get HIVE because you voted "correctly?"
Was the vote a vote, or a was it a multiple choice
quiz, with several answers that disqualify? It's
possible that we might have different ideas
about what exactly voting is. Where you live,
what does the act of voting mean to you?
If you vote incorrectly, does that mean you
cannot receive benefits from the State?
I got hive cuz I managed to take part of the airdrop, which wasnt hard.
actually I had to do exactly nothing. :)
I don't care about the State. State is only here with the justification to hinder monopols, but the state is the new all-controlling, all-knowing monopol.
I am here for free markets.
That's interesting. It looks like you and I are in the same boat, that's exactly how I got my HIVE, by doing nothing. My concern is for fellow HIVEians that were excluded from the airdrop because they did something. They took part in an election (or vote for witness). Many people all around the world take part in free and fair elections. However, if their communities were to penalize them because of who they voted for, I think you'd see a sharp decline in turnout.
If people are afraid to vote for who they want, it means that the system of governance isn't there based upon the will of the people, but rather based on the fear of the people. A consensus is a general agreement. A fear-based consensus is a social contract signed under duress and cast in the form of a ballot or vote. Contracts, agreements, and votes carried out under duress are null and void because it creates artificial outcomes.
An Airdrop is free money.
You try to tell me everyone has a right to free money.
Do you know economy? Austrian school?
But I can feel and hear you, you have a high fairness feeling in you. Sadly it has been abused and reprogrammed by society.
It's just fair that our community has a right to exclude certain people from an airdrop of the ne currency of our own new blockchain..
That kinda was the consensus on this new chain. And people were informed.
Without that part, HIVE would be THE SAME as STEEM....
Also we still have the ability to still airdrop certain excluded users. All funds are in the SPS.
I can appreciate your concerns regarding judging people by their votes. As we have discussed the Hive blockchain didn't diminish anyone's holdings, anywhere. The folks (us) that use Hive don't owe free tokens to anyone either.
You keep soft-pedaling the fact that the sockpuppet witnesses were not just members of the community with policy issues. They were agents of a party undertaking a hostile takeover.
The discussion of this takeover was widespread and incessant, so no one that undertook voting for them could reasonably claim they were unaware of this.
The Steem witnesses from the community did not act to disrupt those that voted for those witnesses on Steem. On Hive, they simply didn't give any of the free tokens with which they could have attacked Hive.
I disagree that this is in any way comparable to retaliating against political opponents in an election for representatives, first because the retaliation didn't occur on Steem at all. Second, the retaliation simply consisted of not giving them the free ammunition to recreate their opposition to free speech on a separate platform. Despite their opposition to free speech, these parties were still granted accounts on Hive - where they could speak freely regarding their opposition to free speech.
Your logic seems to be analogous to arguments that someone breaking into your house to steal your food has an equal right to eat it to members of your household. I don't agree.
There are three categories of HIVEians excluded from the airdrop based on how they voted on the other blockchain. (14) Steemit accounts, (18) Tron sock puppet accounts, and (300) accounts of other HIVEian's which fit into an arbitrary category. This arbitrary category discriminates against those HIVEians based on three criteria. My post addresses the third category of HIVEians only, not Tron's sockpuppets or STINC accounts.
(1) More than 1k steem power and
(2) voted a minimum of two sockpuppets.
(3) or proxied a minimum of two sockpuppets.
These individuals voted either for a witness or a proxy. When you set a proxy for your witness vote, the proxy votes for your witnesses with your steem power. So basically, proxies act as a kind of collectivized voting entity with constituents of their own, they're kind of like politicians on the blockchain.
One of the forbidden proxies on this list of 300, is proxy.token, a strong favorite of the Korean community and others because of their purported stance against downvotes. I know this because, before Justin Sun's arrival on the scene, I set them as my proxy for a short time because they sold themselves as anti-downvote. After some digging, it didn't look like they were voting according to the polls they conducted, so I cleared their proxy.
Had I not done this digging, I too would have been swept up in the witchhunt to purge "quislings" as you put it in a prior exchange. But here in comes the problem, my intention for voting them wasn't because I was a quisling, it was because of blockchain politics entirely unrelated to Justin Sun and his ambitions. You see, as a friend once put it to me, not everyone on the blockchain is a single-issue voter.
Because of the nature of the conversation, it was a profound statement to me, because I saw the truth behind it, and it altered my paradigm a bit. If you accept it as truth, you might come to realize that not everyone that voted for a proxy who voted for a sock did so intending to split the chain. For a while, there, (very curiously,) the consensus of the dPoS appeared to settle upon a stalemate—It was as if the voice of the chain was saying; "can't we all just get along, and until we can, nobody is going anywhere."
I believe a lot of individuals and entities split their witness votes in such a way as to support a stalemate because they didn't like decentralization, and they didn't want to see the chain get split either. Splitting votes between the two parties is a message in and of itself, it's a vote for gridlock, or effectually, a nonvote vote. Think peacemaker. Now I can't say any certainty what proxy.token or the intent of other proxies were. Were they acting as peacemakers to prevent a catastrophic split or were they quislings.
Voting is when a community gets together and casts their ballots to see in which direction a thing will go, and based upon the outcome of the vote, it is understood that community members will concede to the will of the group as a whole. If after the vote, we choose to ostracize or discriminate against people because of their choice, instead of allowing them to fall in line with the will of the community, then what just occurred wasn't a vote at all but rather an exercise in obedience.
In communist countries, you can only vote for approved party members. To do so otherwise might put your life, physical safety, or assets in danger. Voting in those countries is not a real exercise of self-determination. This is because of the looming threat which, causes the voter to act under a state of duress.
I think HIVE can do much better than that. To me, what was done with the ninja mine by Sun's STINC accounts and his proxies were a clear attempt at a coup. Yet, the dragnet which followed that swept up so many low-powered accounts was illogical and hypervigilant to the point of being self-destructive and antithetical to the spirit and definition of what voting is supposed to be.
As you point out the fervor of discussion after the sale to Tron caused you to give the matter thought, and to vote accordingly. Everyone should have done the same, or failed to give attention to their influence on governance during the successful takeover.
Neutrality isn't shooting both sides of a conflict equally. That's not what Switzerland, for example, did in WWII. Neutrality is not shooting at either side, and in this case that would be not voting. Voting for both sides is equivalent to shooting at both sides in a war.
Finally, nobody did anything to anyone's stake. Not one Steem was taken or frozen or anything. We just left.
Hive is separate from Steem. The accounts we have discussed above were voting for obvious sock puppets of Tron actively taking over Steem at the time. Choosing to not provide them free tokens to do the same thing to Hive that they did to Steem was the only reasonable action the creators of Hive could take.
None of those accounts had any Hive that was taken from them. No harm was done to them. Hive did not do them wrong, under any theory, by not giving them free tokens, and that's the simple fact.
I may not have been clear, I investigated who they were voting for and if their vote selections were in fact against downvotes based on their polling. It turned out they didn't vote for any of the witnesses who said they were against downvotes. In fact, they voted for one witness that polled that he/or/she was in favor of downvotes. That's why I removed them from my proxy.
Voting equally for socks and community witnesses, if that's what they did, has the effect of showing support to both sides, but it does not empower one above the other. The simple criteria used too ice out HIVEians was too simple and created a pretty pointless dragnet that isolated many Steemians with low SP. It reveals that the votes are not votes, they are exercises in obedience. They are "do this, or else." The votes have become ultimatums.
Everyone whose account was duplicated "left" and or re-spawned bilocally onto the HIVE chain and also exist on the Steem chain. Those 300 HIVEians have equal right to their stake, and if they are excluded because of how they voted on a different blockchain it proves that the vote is not a vote, it's an ultimatum? Why bother to try and garner the consensus of a group if it will not be authentic?
HIVE is demonstrating that when it tries to garner the consensus of a group it will act prejudicial towards individuals who participate. This means that future votes will be marred by this and you won't have a genuine consensus based on the determination of the voter. You'll have a result that is an artifice. I don't think you are comprehending what voting is or why people do it.
You keep saying that "we left" but it is not just you that left. Everyone's accounts were duplicated here on HIVE and everyone expected the air drop in the case of a community split. Not everyone wanted a community split and this is probably why many people voted how they did. Regardless of why they voted, you absolutely must give them the option to adhere to the will of the group without retributive action (or inaction) otherwise we are just making a joke of our voting system and will quickly become that in which we so desperately tried to avoid.
It's a bit like struggling to get out of quicksand, the harder you try the more you fall. We went full on despot mode to protect ourselves from being taken over by despots. Can you imagine if nation states deprived people of government benefits based on what party they voted for? If you think about it that way, I'm sure you can see where that leads.
I'm only considering voting for @r0nd0n shes the voice of reason.