Now we are making it clear to the community that it is but an "expression of support", with no actionable plan. Very new age! For that explanation I thank you.
I don't see that she has an option. As you point out later in your post, over 80% of the stake weight is controlled by JD wallets. So Creative could say "any proposal gaining more than X% support will be implemented", those words would hold little weight when she doesn't have the power to enforce such changes on the staking majority.
It makes much more sense to treat petition support as what it is: a fair way of gauging which petitions the stakeholders support.
Let's state the obvious, rather the elephant in the room. Ineffectual by design due to the qualities of this coin (more about this below). With the added advantage for those who this rigged system favors. I hear you loud and clear so will others who read the thread and are frustrated by continual justifications for inaction.
It's not clear to me what you're trying to say exactly, but you seem to be thinking that the CLAMour system was put in place to avoid having to change anything, and that the status quo somehow favors those who came up with the CLAMour system. I don't see how you can argue that letting whoever controls the stolen SilkRoad or MtGox wallets dig up large numbers of CLAMs favors anyone currently involved in CLAM. I personally would be in favor of limiting the number of CLAMs that those large wallets can claim in the future. But am not willing to "throw my weight around" to make it happen.
The system isn't rigged, and "no majority supports it" isn't an unreasonable justification for inaction as I see it. It would be wrong to make a change to the rules which less than 50% of the staking weight supports, no matter how much it would benefit you or I. Wouldn't you agree?
Ironically, the voting (this magical way to express your feelings) came about when the larger community, those who cared (if you magically expressed yourself we can at minimum say you care) had been using this forum to express their desires to do away with a largely unfair system that discriminates amongst new comers, favors past criminals and exposes the very people who support the network to risk. No matter what the original intentions, that is the present day reality.
If "the larger community" truly supports ending digging they should use the CLAMour system to voice their support. Then we can end digging. Raising an army of trolls to shout on the forum is easy, and proves nothing. Using the CLAMour system to prove support for your clause is easy - so long as that support actually exists among significant stakeholders.
Just-Dice wallets make this decision and you are smart enough to know that.
The wallets vote how I tell them to. And I tell them to vote according to the wishes of the JD investors.
About 84% of the staking community are simply voting by proxy via Just-dice [don't quote me on the 84% as that number is dynamic and I have not recently run the math]. This may not have been by design but it is reality. It is as true if not truer (as it may be more powerful) then any given line of code in the coin’s protocol.
I didn't check the numbers recently either, but 84% sounds plausible. I'm not sure what your concern is about this however. I can guess:
a) you think that I am misrepresenting the JD investors' wishes, and having the wallet vote how I want rather than how they want
b) you think that if a petition I disagree with gets somewhere close to 50% support I will start "rigging" things to make sure it never actually gets there
Am I close? If you can be more explicit about your objections hopefully I can address them. I currently don't attempt to prove that I'm representing user wishes fairly. I could include per-investor support in the
weekly investor report that I post to the JD blog which I currently use to prove that the site is solvent. That would give a once-a-week proof to each investor that their wishes at least were being included in the total at that point in time. But it doesn't stop me cheating for the other 167 hours of the week.
This reality makes it impossible for simply a community based update triggered fork change. Many may not like it but it is now part of the corpus of the coin
I am willing to make community-supported changes to the wallets run by JD. If there's clear support for ending staking (or for doing anything else for that matter), I'll push a change (either after having create it myself or received it from the community) to the github repository implementing that change, release a new version of the client, and run that version of the client on JD.
We can make up nice sounding terms and play cloak and daggers but the reality is clear. Of the voting community the majority already expressed what they want so lets not gloss over the issue.
Where did this happen? How were you able to ascertain that the majority had spoken, let alone been in support of change? If you can point me to this majority support I would love to see it. It would save having to go through this silly CLAMour nonsense. But until you do, this is the best way anyone has come up with of gauging support.
To exaggerate your (assumed) position: in a country of a million people, if 10 of them get together and vote to oust the president, and 9 out of those 10 vote in favor, do they have a majority? You can show proof that 90% were in favor, and so it's a clear majority. But what about the 999990 people who didn't care or even know about the vote? You seem to be saying that because they didn't vote they should be ignored. I would disagree.
Now that we have cleared the air I will put on my best hippie cap and go chant my wants barefoot in the park. Another powerful way for one to express their desires.
I'd personally prefer you go the opposite direction and be more direct in your criticisms so that we can get to the bottom of things.
