RE: Justin says Steemit is migrating to Tron: Time to Panic or Things will be OK for Now?

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

How is 20% of the supply suddenly 51% of the stake?

75 million SP is not 51% of 200 million SP. Also, isn't a supermajority (17/21) of witnesses required for a hard fork to go through? Is there an error in your logic?



0
0
0.000
14 comments
avatar

@aggroed's point is that with 75M Steem Power, one would have enough votes to elect all top 21 witnesses. This is because the most highly voted witness of @yabapmatt currently has 46M Steem Power voting for him. This assumes the rest of the community does not create additional votes to counteract any voting done with the STINC stake.

Note that an account can vote for multiple witnesses. I didn't originally realize this because it's so counter-intuitive. Basically voting for multiple witnesses does not diminish the contribution of each individual vote.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not even close to 200 million votes for witnesses, and it is likely that it never will. Similarly, 75 million is 20% of the total supply of STEEM, not SP. And also similarly, it is very unlikely that anything close to 350 million total STEEM will ever power up as SP.

75 million is 37.5% of the currently powered up SP, not 20%. 37.5% is easily more than enough exercise total control given that not all of the powered up SP votes.

In theory, in some extreme hypothetical, 75 million might not be enough for total control, but in reality that is very unlikely.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not even close to 200 million votes for witnesses,

Correct, which is why it's important that people vote.

and it is likely that it never will.

Regardless, it is important that we try.

Similarly, 75 million is 20% of the total supply of STEEM, not SP.

I know. 200 million STEEM is the size of the vesting fund.

And also similarly, it is very unlikely that anything close to 350 million total STEEM will ever power up as SP.

Unnecessary.

75 million is 37.5% of the currently powered up SP, not 20%.

I know.

37.5% is easily more than enough exercise total control given that not all of the powered up SP votes.

Yes, given that.

In theory, in some extreme hypothetical, 75 million might not be enough for total control, but in reality that is very unlikely.

When someone comes at you with an axe over his head, do you just calmly take a blow to the head, or do you do at least try something?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes you try something. You try to understand the “truth”. That there is no axe.

Lot of what is happening now is posturing. It will take months if not years for the buyer to understand what the buy is and then to implement any changes for the better or for worse.

Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Yes you try something. You try to understand the “truth”. That there is no axe.

The axe is the Steem blockchain being driven to the ground after the token swap is done. After that, a replica of what was on Steem will exist on Tron. STEEM will become a token on Tron. Tron is even more centralized than Steem is. Centralization is the very poison the blockchain space exists to provide an alternative for. In a centralized setup like that, you can kiss goodbye ownership and self-governance. You will always be potentially one hard fork away from getting totally fucked by the powers that be.

Lot of what is happening now is posturing. It will take months if not years for the buyer to understand what the buy is and then to implement any changes for the better or for worse.

I'm sure Justin Sun can reconsider his initial point of view. But his original intentions were very clearly stated: to move everything over to Tron after which the original Steem blockchain was meant to die. I don't take the man for a joker.

Blockchains are public infrastructure. They are protocols and decentralization is their entire reason for being. The notion of a proprietary blockchain is a complete joke.

The idea of treating blockchains as businesses has to be purged form the space. That would happen if no one ever paid a single cent for any centralized shitcoin. If any degree of centralization exists no one should invest anything in that coin unless the distribution is rapidly decentralizing. That process was underway on Steem until Ned sold Steemit, Inc.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Other than panic there is no basis to any of that. But even if you are correct we will protect the interest of steem blockchain. No worries.

Do you believe everything you see posted on internet? Lol

Have some good sushi tonight, perhaps with a bottle of good dry sake, that will calm your nerves :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

Voting is one thing people can do but certainly not the only thing. In this instance I don't expect any amount of voting to make a significant difference to the fact that 37.5% is an enormous and dominant share of stake.

To be clear, this risk always existed on Steem in the form of a dominant share of concentrated stake owned by a corporation. Now we are seeing some of the further consequences to the risk that many people were willing to overlook for four years.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

In this instance I don't expect any amount of voting to make a significant difference to the fact that 37.5% is an enormous and dominant share of stake.

How does that math work out? Please enlighten me. How does a single entity with 37.5% of stake install a supermajority of its own witnesses who do its bidding?

To be clear, this risk always existed on Steem in the form of a dominant share of concentrated stake owned by a corporation. Now we are seeing some of the further consequences to the risk that many people were willing to overlook for four years.

Sure. The thing is that a lot of people have been hoping that the stake distribution would decentralize sufficiently before that risk is realized.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)
  1. It only can't unilaterally if you expect a major increase in the amount of stake voting for witnesses. That includes stake held by dormant and even dead stakeholders, lost keys, etc. I don't expect this.
  2. Even if you assume that there is enough stake actively voting such that 37.5% isn't enough to literally exert unilateral control, it is still highly dominant. With the slightly simplified model that there are two distinct slates of witnesses and it takes >50% to vote in one slate, the 37.5% only requires 20% support from the rest of the stake to reach 50%. This could include app owners with stake who are bribed (which need not be directly nefarious, but could include offers of funding for marketing, development, etc.), people who are confused, people who are swayed by marketing/campaigning, etc. Getting 80% of any group to agree on anything is not easy, and certainly much much harder than peeling off 20%.

But realistically you are not going to get all of the rest of the non-voting stake to participate, so even if you could possibly get enough to participate such that 37.5% is strictly below 50%, it would not be 20% that needs to peel off but maybe a few percent at best.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

It only can't unilaterally if you expect a major increase in the amount of stake voting for witnesses. That includes stake held by dormant and even dead stakeholders, lost keys, etc. I don't expect this.

Not to try would demonstrate a high degree of negligence.

Even if you assume that there is enough stake actively voting such that 37.5% isn't enough to literally exert unilateral control, it is still highly dominant. With the slightly simplified model that there are two distinct slates of witnesses and it takes >50% to vote in one slate, the 37.5% only requires 20% support from the rest of the stake to reach 50%. This could include app owners with stake who are bribed (which need not be directly nefarious, but could include offers of funding for marketing, development, etc.), people who are confused, people who are swayed by marketing/campaigning, etc. Getting 80% of any group to agree on anything is not easy, and certainly much much harder than peeling off 20%.

Now you're making assumptions. But thank you for detailing them.

But realistically you are not going to get all of the rest of the non-voting stake to participate, so even if you could possibly get enough to participate such that 37.5% is strictly below 50%, it would not be 20% that needs to peel off but maybe a few percent at best.

In the short term, nothing will change. According to Steemit, Inc employees, the Tron Foundation will continue to fund ongoing development at Steemit, Inc. The Steem blockchain is not going to get axed any time soon. It would take a lot of work to replicate the functionalities of the Steem blockchain in smart contracts on the Tron blockchain.

In the medium to long term, it seems that Justin Sun's plans are open. It is not unusual in the tech sector for companies to acquire other companies without knowing exactly what they're going to do with them. The Tron foundation has acquired Steemit because they have some kind of a rudimentary vision of what it might be useful for. Those plans will take shape as we go along in the next year or so. There are no clear cut plans to shut down the chain and set up shop on Tron any time soon.

When I listened to the Witness Forum yesterday, it seems that most witnesses are on board with the idea of having some sort of mitigations in place in case a hostile takeover would take place. I think those mitigations including, in my view, getting every stakeholder to use all of their witness votes, working with exchanges etc. are very important because they signal to the Tron foundation that his community values its independent existence despite being more than willing to build bridges and co-operate fruitfully with the Tron foundation.

Total mental capitulation at this stage is worst imaginable course of action.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I certainly agree with encouraging people to use more witness votes. It can't hurt. My position is only that this should be encouraged while also maintaining a realistic understanding of its likely effectiveness.

For a start (before any of the assumptions I described even matter), you need to raise the roughly 50 million SP that is actively voting for witnesses up to at least 75 million before the Tron-owned stake is not an absolute unilateral majority. That's a tall order, but, again, perfectly fine to encourage.

No one I know is in favor of capitulation, and certainly not me.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Your numbers are sobering and helpful because they reveal the difficulty of what should be done.

0
0
0.000