Thank you for answering. I know you are saying as much as you can and the list is not in the public domain. A large group isn't decentralized. It is just less centralized.
Perhaps I'm now most curious to compare with the people who've been recently frozen on Steem, especially the newer community members on the steem frozen list. Were all these accounts involved in the hive airdrop decision?
I understand the list was based on code and actions of the affected accounts. However that code was made by and approved by humans who subjectively picked and chose the variables and constants, and decided to execute the code. It wasn't some AI or devine decision.
I'm curious about the next step. Why can we not choose case by case and consider others to add or changes to the original code used to punish those who may have 'accidentally not voted' for sock puppets, etc.
There's nothing that prevents individual appeals, if you want to make them.
Good point. I guess that will be their next step if this doesn't satisfy. It may avoid us some clutter and give those excluded an idea of what they are up against.
The only one I would definitely vote no to is Steemit accounts or people who argue in their proposals for that, too.
It’s not that there is a private list of those involved, it’s just it’s a group of 100+ people who included most Steem witnesses (not just top 20), devs, some community members etc that was involved in the Hive launch.
And a large group made up of representatives that the community votes for is the exact way the DPOS platform works and the definition of decentralization.
No, not all accounts that have now been frozen on the Steem chain were involved with the discussion. In fact some didn’t like and spoke out against an exclusion list. Honestly the list on Steem makes no sense at all to me. It seems some in the group responsible for it felt it would be a way to pressure the “Hive team” into giving them the HIVE airdrop. So maybe they just picked random people, including an exchange, 2 dApps and a brand new stakeholder.
And yes you are right, a human made the code and decided the factors.
I believe, based on the post above, many of those will be looked at and considered as yes many probably didn’t know what they were doing and therefore the purpose of an appeal. But I’m not sure what you mean by adding more or changing the original code - the airdrop is already done. No other accounts will be excluded, it’s over. What the community can do now is decide if it want to overturn the code decisions and in what ways. Some may want to see all excluded accounts receive an airdrop, some may want to see those who didnt appear to know what they were doing receive it. Some may not want to see any of them receive it due to the actions they took on Steem. The community gets to use their votes to decide this.. therefore solving the issue of it being a decision by a few. As well as addressing issues a code cannot see, only a human can.
Thank you for clarifying, particularly about the new steem issue. I thought that much.
Uggh I get another powerdown in a couple of hours. Kinda wishing he made a faster powerdown so I could skip the wait.
Let's talk hypothetical, and here is what scares me. Say for example I make a proposal to remove your Hive stake and send it to @null (I don't want to), and it gets approved with overwhelming support.
In theory wouldn't it be a lovely decentralized decision? We could have a hardfork to destory it.
Now I know in reality this would never happen, but pandora's box has been opened. We need healing.
The proposal system has no ability to remove someone's stake. It's a funding mechanism and has been used a few times to get stakeholders consensus thoughts. But it has no ability to "do" anything.
I personally do not think there is anything decentralized about removing someone's legitimate stake they have purchased.. in fact it goes against everything this space stands for.
To clarify the difference here - The HIVE airdrop exclusion is deciding how a completely new asset would be allocated, and not removing what someone already owns. The Hf 22.2 was addressing ninja mined stake that was intended as a dev fund. Both of these situations are very, very different than what you are describing. Just to clarify that.
As far as your hypothetical thoughts- a proposal cannot result in a hardfork. So even if you made such a proposal, you would also have to get 17/21 witnesses to run this new code removing someone's stake as well as get exchanges listing HIVE to run it as well.. this isn't something someone can just make a proposal for.
I'm not sure what you mean by Pandora's box has been opened or what healing the above would provide. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Yes, but it is a method to express the desire of the masses. If one gets 51% of the witness votes (can choose top 30), hardfork is possible.
Conveniently the code to move around stakes already exists and has been tested. I'm sire it can be tweaked and executed again with less effort.
There are another way to earn stake. airdropped Hives and Rewarded, etc. I assume you include these.
I would argue there was nothing decentralized about removing ninja mined stake either. The code doesn't care how it ended up in the wallet. So this point of whether or not it is decentralized is irrelevant to the technical requirements.
Pandora's box was opened by removing stake from wallets. Okay technically they were not airdropped, but from a mathematical standpoint this is a chicken or egg first argument, glass half full or half empty.
The code was probably a conditional statement.
By healing, I mean making things right. We don't need more enemies. I think fixing the list for people who did meet qualifications is a good first. Then we have the decentralized vote. And after individual proposals. This will make some of the angry people forgive, but it won't heal everything. I'm sure as a community we can figure out how to become very strong again.