I was somewhat taken aback last night when I peeked in on Blurt to see the escalation of hostilities from the whales and their Fud mob, this time involving once again witness and questionable programmer Fervi.
Evidently, he took to Hive to solicit both sympathy and more likely as a primary goal to create more of a wedge between the chains. I say likely as my understanding is he isn't the most popular one at Hive, given his stellar rating of 10 there.
I don't hold the rep level as a barometer of a persons worth over there as I've seen many accounts that were good folks decimated over there. Just pointing out that I doubt he felt he would elicit much sympathy and likely wanted to recruit for the FUD train him and his benefactors have been cultivating for some time now.
I find myself amazed week after week, month after month how this crew and their deep pocket funders continue to have so many in the community seek to turn a blind eye to their shenanigans. Week after week as they fund and seek to attack the Foundation, developers and witnesses and then cry woe is me whenever it finally elicits a response.
Watching what appears to be otherwise intelligent people gasping in outrage and fuming because there is finally a reaction to the assholes who keep attacking. But then, we keep seeing posts saying they are begin censored widely read and among the most heavily upvoted eliciting the outrage over this so called censorship.
Here's your sign moments for sure.
Many of you are probably aware by now there was almost an unanimous vote by the top witnesses to kick (again) Fervi from the private witness chat.
While I'm not certain of what could take place there that would be detrimental to the community, the fact it was nearly unanimous is enough to allow me to accept this.
Having said that, I do personally believe in the best interests of transparency and reputation it should be reconsidered. It seems off to me that a top witness (briefly number one which I'll return to momentarily) would be barred from that private chat unless there were things that are being discussed that is to be hidden from the community and it is feared he would again leak this information.
I'm not sure what proprietary discussions would take place there that could possibly be damaging to the chain if the community at large were to learn of it.
So if possible, I ask if there could be a reconsideration on his removal as it is a bad look in my opinion and gives substance to the common claim that there are schemes taking place as the FUD crew continue to shout to all that they can.
I liken it somewhat to Lucylin. I often think I would invite him to be the top of trending as the FUD whales votes continued to place him at.
He is the ultimate proof one can't be censored here if left to trend. As well as a good magnet for the idiots who wring their hands in despair over his top trending, highly paid censored posts, lol.
In martial arts, there are soft styles and hard styles. Hard style in this battle we've seen playing out has had many bad repercussions, as the damage and fallout is at times derived honestly by the counter measures that were either contemplated or actually taken.
I believe that a softer style would be much more effective here as it is in real life physical combat.
Use their energy against them. Give them the rope to be who they are, and then mock and laugh at them in the community as they are shown to be the parasitical assholes they are.
It will make it more obvious they are actually like this if you use a softer style.
In closing this out, I was taken aback to see that Fervi had been propelled to the number one witness spot by the whales who continue probing for any weakness to take control of the chain.
According to this post by respected witness and developer Tekraze I was stunned to see this information.
Thanks for your trust. This is a temporary as fervi along with ctime, Marius is trying to control top witness. As the top witness also have recovery access, so I asked votes for saboin.
I am still running the node, though
In his bid to protect the chain and community, he unvoted his own witness and urged others to unvote as well and give those votes to Saboin so that top position wouldn't leave the community vulnerable.
I applaud his sacrifice, as well as all others who followed suit and were able to take away that crucial security spot of first witness and restore it to one I think it fair to say has held possibly the most respect here on the chain.
It is times like these where we see who is for the community, and who is more for themselves. Tests that show the mettle of those we are to trust.
I appreciate all of you who came together to stop this latest move by those who would destroy this chain if they can't have it.
The private chat is where we would discuss urgent zero-day patches and vulnerabilities, orchestrating patches before made public, this was common on Steem and in most other platforms. We can't have someone in such a group who we can't trust to not leak it and make the chain vulnerable before the patch is applied.
Thank you for explaining your position.
also, LET'S REMOVE THE RECOVERY ACCOUNTS
When do you start your witness? I think your ideas would be a great balance to the top twenty, and I do believe you will not have trouble gaining support.
thanks, but i don't see any point in spearheading this if the majority of witnesses don't believe individual accounts (including exchange accounts) should be left alone
I think the recovery accounts are a good feature. Perhaps they could at some point allow one to toggle that option off when one gets or creates a new account would be a compromise.
there's a good reason bitcoin doesn't have "recovery accounts"
It's good there are options for those who want them.
maybe, but apparently it's a "security risk"
I've found from the start that the blockchain is very 'cliquey'. I came here on the invitation of 'the brat pack' over the censoring issue on hive. I try to stay out of the politics mostly except when it's entertaining but I do know that my posts always get upvoted by the people you are claiming to be destructive. So for me they are the opposite. I recently noticed the difference between blurt.blog trending and blurtlatam trending and today wondered if the founders actually vote at all on posts because as far as I remember they never vote on mine. So I checked the votes on the top trending on blurt.blog and there they all were voting on their top trenders. So I ask myself why do non of the founders upvote my work? Am I one of these unwelcome content creators like Lucylin? Or is it just a 'by association' case?
I'm genuinely curious over this. If not for those 'greedy whales' I would have given up on this place for posting, and then maybe there's the rub.
ps. the use of the FUD thing is included in the 'cliquey' remark as I have no clue what FUD is and i wonder how many others don't but are afraid to ask. What is FUD?
Doctors who push harmful pharmaceutical concoctions are also heavily rewarded. I'd think you would dismiss that as any form of barometer.
I expect better from you quite frankly. Just a quick perusal of your blog shows you have and do receive upvotes from the founders. This is the same spirit Lucy uses to claim he is being censored when his words are readable and highly rewarded.
In the last week I see the founders curation account has voted for you 4 times for a total of 439.424 Blurt.
Perhaps because it pales in value to the whales it seems like no vote from them, but it is votes from them to you and seems to be a sense of ingratitude or entitlement from you when you say they don't upvote your work because of some affiliation you have with Lucy.
I've seen so much of these false assertions from the so called brat pack and their associates the last several months it has become maddening.
FUD means spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, the exact crap the so called beneficial whales who continue trying to erode confidence in the FOUNDERS are rewarding so heavily as they manipulate perception and value.
I respect your critical approach to the medical field, I would ask you to please use that same approach here.
I placed two links to posts I wrote here that perhaps will aid you in reassessing some of this stuff if you are of a mind to look.
How am I supposed to know who owns a curation account? I don't know these things. I don't know how this whole thing works coz no-one explains it in a plain english format. If you're disappointed in me then that's on this place not being open and clear. I read both sides of the argument and I gave my personal perspective. Sorry my lack of knowledge on this front is not up to your standards.
You were one of the few people I also have respect for and enjoyed reading your posts but they've petered out now too. So what's the point in staying. Nothing much interests me here except for a few people who are also no longer posting.
So I'm ungrateful and entitled for not knowing that someone has upvoted me? No I'm ignorant of the facts to be more accurate. This is why I stay out of this stuff mostly unless it affects me personally or someone I like. Yes I do like Lucylin and that seems to be my crime in your eyes too from what you're saying.
I'm not giving my views on the politics of this as I clearly am totally out of my depth but I can give my personal thoughts and that is what they were. I do tend to defend underdogs, that's me, take it or leave it.
Even here you tell me the 'founders curation account' has upvoted me but you don't tell me which account that is. So many secrets. It's just weird.
I'm disappointed in you too for totally taking my words and making them into something else entirely.
Thanks for the laugh
I wasn't being funny
I know. That's what made it funny.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @scilwa, which is the curating account for @R2cornell's Discord Community.
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @scilwa. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
Thanks for your views.
Actually the poll is taken for 2nd time, fervi repeated same things before as well.
Then it was voted in favour of him, but again and again his behaviour have made people rethink of that, and same witnesses who were in favour, now voted against him.
Also, the chat is private to have some discussion before making it public, like ideas to implement and at time of chain halt, and any security incident.
Because we have seen, when still in discussion people can start demanding or protesting against something. So it's just a witness only chat that is not for the community ( at the time )
And whenever the discussion ends, team always put on blurt.blog
It's just witnesses don't discuss anything on discord and when they are denied access to discord, they cry like a kid.
They are same like a kid, who will cry for something but when he gets he don't use that.
Same is for discord.
And we have seen, how incomplete or wrong information can influence community and turn into a big FUD.
I found your leadership in sacrificing your own witness position to propel Saboin witness to secure the top witness spot both admirable and humbling. The community once again owes you a debt of gratitude for placing the chain as a priority over your own immediate interests. Thank you.
On the issue of the witness chat, my concern is that it is a bad look to exclude a top witness from it, even if they have a history of leaking which will create FUD. To be frank, the idea that was previously leaked was a horrible idea and even if it hadn't been leaked, once it was announced would still have received the fury and push back from the community as it did. I was still going to leave myself over the idea of freezing accounts, and it was only through the further discussions with Jacob that resulted in reversal of that idea with a definitive declaration on member rights that I felt comfortable the chain was not being altered into something no longer desirable.
I don't seek you to further explain/justify the position taken on this, just hopeful that it will be taken into consideration among yourself and the other witnesses the vulnerability to image keeping a top witness out creates, and whether this damaging image is worth buying a small amount of time before the community finds out anyway.
It looks like the propeller votes were cast after the expulsion, and not the other way round.
Somebody who cannot maintain Chatham House rules will suffer consequences.
And there is always the witness-public channel.
As for the "freezing accounts" debacle, I wouldn't revisit it, as I explained in depth at the time. Huge blunder - words matter - defining words matters most.
I've long grown past being tired on seeing it and the drone post brought up again and again. Especially when in the latter case most of those grumbling weren't even here at that time.
You'd think these folks think they are singers and their audience demanding them to keep singing the same old tired songs that fell off the charts long ago.
Ironically, both instances actually showcased moments of growth where the outcomes reflected such. But, we are dealing with perfect beings in the peanut gallery I guess who have never faltered and acted or spoken rashly in the heat of the moment before taking a breathe, calming down and NOT moving forward with their momentary lapse.
But will they sing like a bird?
While the threat as you see it was avoided, the current change is still very centralized. I am not into details as you, so I need to learn much, I don't understand why to follow the top 20 rule from steem, why not diverse the odds to like top 30 or top 50? And also why give so much power to number 1 without requiring consensus of some sort for recovery.
There is no fixed rule as top 20, it's just that top witnesses are mostly active ones.
We have all witnesses in discord ( who agrees to be in discord) and everyone was given a chance to vote.
Some were neutral, and some voted
I understand though that the dpos still favour the top 20 much over 21st. Maybe Im wrong.
Its the top witnesses who can implement a fork by super consensus, meaning 17 out of them have to agree by implementing the code changes.