RE: Blurt HardFork 0.8 - A New Consensus

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Blurt HardFork 0.8 - A New Consensus

in blurt •  2 years ago  (edited)

///

In short, in regards to 119, "if you don't got the $ your word ain't shit".
More power to the large stake holders. If the little guy (the majority) wants to change something they will need to group up together their vote weight to make a change vs the large stake holders. But usually the rich man can just power up a bunch and counter.

Having a proxy could help with that. But they want to remove that too.

The change with 119 on proposals will make the little guy's vote inconvenient. Save your vp i say and choose one or two witnesses that you really like little ones.

Sorry my small account brothers and sisters, the bucket is about to get more craby.

I lightly discussed 175
ISSUE #175 - Remove Governance Proxy | Is having a proxy vote for you good or bad?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  

I actually like this change and see it different than you. It gives more power to the little stakeholder. Under the old way we got 30x the amount of our stake to vote with.

So someone with 1,000,000 staked would get 30,000,000 in voting say.

Someone with 10,000 staked would get 300,000 in voting say

Under the new rules the 1,000,000 only equals 1,000,000 and the 10,000 only 10,000. The 30x multiplication was insane to give large stakeholders that much more say.Now they will have to be more selective (as will we all) and they can't dictate all the top slots as they could potentially before.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Exactly this!

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

You give me something to ponder on.

What you say rings true.

I think I am mixing in some feelings.

I understand the power differences with these changes. Already I have seen the changes made at the witnesses page. Even @double-u is showing to be much higher than before. A clear sign he has much organic support?

I guess here is where the feeling lays:

I don't trust megadrive

Yes, I'm not surprised that double-u has climbed in the ranks. He built a lot of good will here before he had his melt down and many have stood by his side out of loyalty regardless of his actions of late. Loyalty is ironic like that at times, where one who would now destroy something still gets support from those who wouldn't wish for the thing to be destroyed.

I'm hopeful that as time goes by many of you who have a sense of unease with megadrive can at a minimum set it aside and judge his new actions solely on their own merit. And ideally over time give him a chance to display he is capable of self reflection and choosing better paths.

It had to have been difficult for him to reverse himself so drastically and do so publicly. His actions since then have been conciliatory despite most often being met with hostility, some deserved and a lot not so much.

I'm not in your shoes or some of the others who were most offended, so it isn't my place to determine when or if such a thing can occur.

All I can do in my desire to see more acceptance is use myself as an example.

There have been times I've been so upset (mostly when I was younger) that my anger or fear was so great I did and said things that were an over the top response to the event(s). In hindsight I regretted my actions, and learned many times over the valuable lesson that a bell can't be unrung.

However, sometimes the bell that got rung one regrets can be replaced by a new bell if the person on the other end of that ringing is amenable to giving one another chance, even if warily at first. I can say for myself that there have been many gracious people in my life who chose not to write me off because of an action or response I made in haste, and my gratefulness was and is quite humbling for the compassion extended to myself.

I've used such dynamics from my own horror stories of life to come to an understanding that regardless of how difficult it might be, I have to try to be for others what it is my heart cries for them to be for myself. Often it is for naught, but I have to honor that desire in my own spirit and my only control in that arena is in my own approach.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Loyalty is ironic like that at times, where one who would now destroy something still gets support from those who wouldn't wish for the thing to be destroyed.

I have never destroyed, I do not destroy and I will not destroy!

When will you finally stop your lying and damaging my reputation!

Loading...
  ·  2 years ago  ·  

"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice "...ain't ever gonna fucking happen...

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

It's the same what is on latest chains, all cosmos chains, dtube and even the new fork tipmeacoffee, all have 1/n voting.

Just give some time to it and see how changes happens.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

No choice but to see what happens. Even with the fact these things were not talked about. And even if they were talked about, its not like the powers that be would take heed to them. Its, "here is the changes we're going to make. Deal with it."

Changes made without even a consensus call months before hand for serious debate among the blurt masses using the chain. Consensus is only restricted down to the witnesses which most of do not even know code as well, and hence must kneel to any changes made. They don't have much choice if they so wish to keep getting their witness rewards for writing blocks.

It's fine to have them around too, but unless they get their knowledge up to make or counter changes when the need arises, how can we call any hard coding changes fair?