RE: Steem Witness Draw A Line In The Sand: Soft-Fork Of The Blockchain
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I'm 100% against this. Terrible precedent to set. I understand the witnesses were scared of what he might do due to his confusing and contradicting statements but that is no reason to freeze (steal) his steem power. I know they say it is "easily reversible" and yes, the transaction can be flipped but the negative feelings this softfork must produce in J.S. must be big and there is no reversing that.
I do not like businessmen like J.S. but he did acquire his stake through a legitimate transaction and I believe the witnesses nullifying his stake like this is wrong.
Posted via Steemleo
0
0
0.000
The stake was not nullified. It's still there but now code restricts its use in the same way the agreement around it existing in the first place restricted its use. It can actually be said that nothing about that stake changed. It was always used for account creation and onboarding and it'll keep serving its purpose just like that unless JS wants to stop giving onboarded minnows a little bit of free SP.
Did Satoshi Nakamoto develop Bitcoin so a quorum of miners could decide to freeze funds like a bank from time to time? It's rather sobering, that 21 witnesses would conspire to do this on Steem. What is to keep the five or six Bitcoin mining pool operators from conspiring to freeze some
accountsaddresses for not going along with the Chinese Communist Party as more and more of the hashing power comes under Chinese control?Did Satoshi Nakamoto develop Bitcoin so he can sell it for personal profit?
Do you prefer having 20 witnesses protecting the Steem blockchain or just one destroying it?
"Destroying" is the wrong word to use, isn't it? I concede though with one person controlling the Steem blockchain, you would end up with something that is more like PayPal rather than Bitcoin. The benefits of proof-of-work in Bitcoin are here demonstrated.