You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Proxy Announcement: Witness Voting - Please Vote For My Proxy

in #steemit • 8 years ago (edited)

So in 2 minutes you read all of that and considered it not to mean undermining steem power?
Then could you please define what it means to undermine steem power?
Then I can understand and so can others, what it means to undermine steem power, as clearly I believe that holding a massive stake of steem and voting purely to antagonize people in a gestural manner while saying that he only votes with 1% for stuff he doesn't see, where that is a blatant lie:
thelie.PNG
then afterwards calling me trash by saying that
hmmmm.PNG
as he allocates a nice portion of the reward pool to his comment non-the-less..
besides adding the people flagged by blacklist to his list of people he won't vote for, clearly aligning and giving support to whoever runs blacklist as it remains a mystery still, and their extortion/blackmail scheme without revealing the motives behind any of the flags that numerous people were and can still be affected by, constitutes working both directly and through proxy to undermine Steem Power and the platform/community as a whole.

8 years ago in #steemit by
$0.00
    Reply 4
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    Voting is expressed by adding options to transactions and signing those transactions.

    Users cannot undermine STEEM Power by signing transactions.

    STEEM Power can only be undermined by changing consensus.

    You cannot shoehorn your little dispute into this situation.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago 

      Does my "little dispute" fit into this then?

      Are "issues" a factor at all?

      It could be asserted that witness shouldn't be involved in issues.

      Witness currently provide seed nodes, sign blocks, and price feeds. For the most part, this is all witnesses currently do. If a witness is for or against the direction of the platform, there isn't anything they can realistically do. If a lone witness rejects a hardfork, it will still get adopted.

      But I think we can make this a factor. At least, I hope we can.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         8 years ago 

        If it did, I would classify it under "non-essential." Which means I wouldn't mind if a witness had a position on it or not.

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           8 years ago (edited)

          -nesting limit-
          Blatant lies and being involved in issues is non-essential?

          Which means I wouldn't mind if a witness had a position on it or not.

          What does that mean exactly? How is it a position? Is it not a statement of fact.

          He lied, supports blackmail/extortion directly and has used his voting power in disingenuous ways. Is that a position? Or you are arguing that if someone adopts such a position it's a non-essential? Is the witness not supposed to have integrity? Is not essential therefore to be credible, by your standard, to be a witness?

          adjective: disingenuous

          not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

          His little experiment, as I believe he was trying something and then reverted to his old way, is there on the blockchain to draw your own conclusions from, but as I see it by the content that he voted, is that he voted for two different and strongly opposing views and gave neither as much as a cent, which is antagonistic:

          adjective: antagonistic

          showing or feeling active opposition or hostility toward someone or something.

          while he later boasted how much 1% from him means and having voted over 2k times not dropping below 80% voting power left in 24 hours while comparatively during that time of disingenuous 0.03% votes and odd 1.33% votes he hardly voted, and it's daring to argue it was automated as one can see the change in the voting percent, from .04% to .1% to .03% in between the regular 1.33%.

          $0.00
            Reply