Sort:  
 5 years ago (edited)

Well, the first step is admitting you have a "problem"...

what i dont get, is when people get pissed off when I make a course correction due to new information coming to light.

DECENTRALIZED LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM = FASCISM

Dino = Decentralized in name only.
We have an opportunity right now to change the Witness selection process and create a truly decentralized platform. The only way I can see to do that creates a problem for a lot of people as it destroys the anonymity of the voters. I dont care so much about that and our votes would not necessarily need to be linked to our accounts.

More detail please. What kind of stuff was deleted?

Nothing outrageous or abusive.
Explanation of why he was voting the Sun Witnesses.
The kind of thing that I resonate with, and I imagine that you would agree with at least in part.

 5 years ago (edited)

More detail please. What kind of stuff was deleted?

Nothing outrageous or abusive.

That's encouraging (that it was not abusive) and disappointing (that it was removed) at the same time.

Explanation of why he was voting the Sun Witnesses.

That sounds like the very definition of "reasonable".

The kind of thing that I resonate with, and I imagine that you would agree with at least in part.

Sure, people SHOULDN'T BE BRIBED OR BULLIED INTO VOTING FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR ACCOUNT.

Even the steem-oligarchs say they believe this (at least until there's a "crisis").

We should consider civil debate the highest arbiter of conviction.

what i dont get, is when people get pissed off when I make a course correction due to new information coming to light.

People tend to "rush-to-disqualify" anyone who isn't their personal favorite brand of sheeple.

We have an opportunity right now to change the Witness selection process and create a truly decentralized platform. The only way I can see to do that creates a problem for a lot of people as it destroys the anonymity of the voters.

I don't believe that making voter's identities part of the public record would help "solve" the "decentralization" "problem".

Increasing the number of "top witnesses" to 200, instead of 20 would "fix" the "problem" reasonably well. That change would make it much more difficult to implement "changes" and "fixes", but I see that as incidental (or even "a bonus feature"). A stable blockchain is paramount. There can be any number of "changes" and "fixes" implemented on the "front-ends" (https://busy.org/@hone.heke/q75hf2 for example).