Yeah, I think this should be done case by case, unless ALL or NONE clearly win.
The way it seems to be happening means we gotta be particularly forgiving or spiteful.
I'd prefer to see a statement from all interested groups.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yeah, there is quite an "eclectic" range of accounts there, including some active users as well as at least one slowwalker farming alt.
Yeah, Im happy to see a few names on there and puzzled by a few more.
It probably was determined by their original criteria and an error.
We also have to keep in mind the 'criteria' and the list itself were 100% centralized decision making and somewhat arbitrary.
We don't even have a list of people/account names who decided on the list.
I'd write a post on it, but I promised not to here. Maybe I'll do on Steem where I'm not bounded by my arbitrary promises.
The decision was made by the large group of people responsible for building the chain you are writing this on. As well as the large group of witnesses who ran the code. There is nothing centralized about it.
The criteria is listed in the post.. it was based on actions the accounts made, not some sort of subjective picking and choosing. Just purely code.
Now it's the second stage - where the community gets comb through it with a human eye and decide what happens.
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.
:D
Didn't get it. What's your arbitrary promise? ;)
I said I won't make post on Hive about steem. Or issues directly related to the split.
I guess for the two mentioned accounts it might be possible to "refund" them using regular proposals should the upcoming announced proposals turn out not in their favor.
We err because we are human my friend. All accounts deserve a second chance if they are willing to accept forgiveness.
Of course, morally that would be the right thing to do. But for example a similar mistake could be someone losing their keys for their account. I doubt that you'd vouch for them to be able to get their stake back. Such mistakes are very bitter, but the affected ones will have to accept them.
As @blocktrades said, and I tried to say as well, individual proposals aren't something that's impossible. I just think that if we're gonna put that into the blockchain code as a hardfork, we should keep all emotions out of that if you know what I mean.
I totally want them to receive their funds back. No doubt about that :)
Your point about losing one's keys is clever. Personally, I don't support key manipulation, so sadly it's game over. People are responsible.
If you have no clue what you are doing, not voting seems to be the only reasonable choice before learning the system. However the same witnesses who made the exclusion list were beating the drum to get people to vote witnesses which undoubtedly pressured some people to make mistakes.
It is a very very unfortunate situation for them, and I am all in for supporting them however possible. (I will vote on the proposals in a way in which they will get their funds back)