RE: In Light Of Recent Events: Can We Reach A Consensus On Banning Abusive Users From Steem?
Decentralization is the only key to Steem's success in my personal opinion. If we remove that then this platform will lose every bit of value it actually has in comparison to any centralized providers. While I'm not sure what happened with @sami100 but eliminating their value via hardfork wouldn't actually solve the problem. They would only then be able to create @sami100.1 and do it all again but now the platform itself has lost its key fundamental difference to any competing social service. This would cause any value that you forked away from a bad actor to also cost the value of all of the Steem that has been acquired over time by the good actors. This would then be forcing the penalty of censorship on all users instead of just the one who actually acted poorly. The better way is to bring to light bad actors so we can identify them and ensure that anyone that interacts with a bad actor knows their character and fork their individual influence from hurting others.
Hey @patrickulrich (that sounds quite German does it? :-)
For a start nobody said removing it...:-)
I agree that one of the unique selling proposition of Steem in the social media market is its decentralized character. Yet, if we - the community - agreed through consensus that we don't tolerate abusive users who only join the platform in order to rip off others, then this would be still a 100% decentralized decision.
Consider my example: identifying the bad actor doesn't solve the problem at all. He will keep stealing money from other people's accounts no matter what. Whether we know him or not, doesn't make a difference then.
You're completely right that banning one account might lead to having two new absusive accounts the next day. The open doors policy is like that. I'm still convinced that makeing an example on purely abusive accounts, would be the right signal.
And if we don't want to ban them, then which tools are we given to fight back?
You are correct! I'm American myself but my heritage definitely comes from Germany!
Thank you for clearing up that I was completely wrong in my first statement. :) I characterized that decentralization is the only key while that is certainly not true. I would also argue that immutability is also key as it stabilizes anyone's belief in their holdings. In fact I believe that's where I meant to go but just got started on the wrong foot and ran with it. I believe I meant to describe immutability the entire time but that doesn't discount decentralization at all either.
If the coins we hold are not immutable then what is to stop the majority from deciding our holdings on the chain. While I agree this seems tolerable in cases of known theft or fraud but how can we decide? If it's merely the majority then I just need enough economic power to say that my target is a bad actor and I can eliminate their value to the system by creating enough ill will that someone takes away from them.
Even worse is if you are the opposite of the majority. What if 51% of the chain is held by Americans while 49% is held by the rest of globe. We could simply say that we don't want to share our economic value and cut off anyone that we don't seem to fit our standard of the majority.
I think the solution is as you said to @anasuleidy to not allow them in your house or community. While we certainly can't force them out of the world (Steem) we can ensure we don't allow ourselves, or our like minded community, to interact with them.