You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

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

in #steemit • 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.

8 years ago in #steemit by
$0.00
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     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