RE: Is Hive Watcher's doing a good job?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
It would probably be more accurate to say that "policing" is something you - or others - say you don't want to do. But that's how the witnesses are understood. As what else? If your stake makes you a player in the upper ranks of policing, there's nothing you can do about being seen as such. Either you are a high-ranking witness or you are not. If you are, expectations are placed on you. You can reject them, but then you would also have to give up your position as a witness. Why don't you do it? If you are not interested in policing, you could give up your position as a Witness. What's stopping you?
0
0
0.000
First off, I have countered more abuse than anyone, it was my thing for many years here. If you don't know that already, then you probably don't know me very well.
Second, being a witness has nothing to do with countering abuse or anything but protecting the blockchain, producing blocks, and auditing and approving code. Everything else is a bonus.
Don't be so vain. If you have countered abuse, and you have done it well, and what you've done can be held up to your highest possible standards, congratulations to you.
Nothing to say against keeping the blockchain and features functioning.
Of course being a witness has something to do with countering abuse, you just described yourself as a long-time abuse fighter. And as I said, there's absolutely nothing you can do about the fact that the users here perceive you that way, whether you like it or not. Especially since the functioning of a technique inevitably collides with the soft factors of interaction, as there is no collision-free space.
It is merely a verbally convenient separation between function and consequence of function that you are making here.
If you're tired of it, I understand, but don't sell me slogans.
I'm not, I'm merely explaining something you apparently are not aware of.
I'm not selling you slogans, the simple fact is a witness is not a do everything you feel like them doing job. A witness has a very specific job, abuse fighting, patting you on the back, making you feel good, hanging out drinking beers, writing posts about flowers in their garden, are not part of that job. Doing more than just protecting the blockchain and producing blocks is great, but that's not what a witness is, they are not the police you call when someone misbehaves. This is a common misconception about what witnesses are.
Are you a technician? If so, you are someone who keeps the technology you are responsible for up and running with your expertise and the use of hardware and software.
You are paid to maintain a server that enables blockchain transactions. Okay.
So far, so good.
But what makes you a "witness"? What makes you a spokesperson for the blockchain?
Since when are technicians the politicians of a platform if they have not previously agreed that a certain interface should be established between them and the user community? Ergo, you are doing politics, because why am I voting for you or voting you out?
Should my judgement of your performance be based on the fact that you maintain a server that continues to facilitate transactions? Hardly.
Your performance is measured by the changes in the code. And since the code is inevitably related to issues such as the features that create an impact among the actors (all users of the blockchain), your issues are inevitably political in nature. So I'll say a third time: there's nothing you can do about it.
Otherwise, you could save yourself the whole Witness act, couldn't you? You could be a "technician" who keeps things running in the background, gets paid for it and that's it. But it's not like that, you all have to decide how the next hard fork will play out. So you're more than just technicians, you're politically active.
Logic dictates since you are politically active, you cannot resort to nothing. You have to take responsibility as a politician. If you don't want that, you cannot be a "witness". That's all I am saying.
P.S. So if you want to keep your crypto income, but you don't want to do politics anymore because you're either tired of your job or don't really understand it yourself, you're not entitled to that crypto income. Of course, if your view is diluted by the fact that there are enough opportunists to keep you in your position, you are the only person who either gives in to the seduction that you are legitimately elected or you think that your political fatigue is a reason to give up your income.
I'm the only witness fighting abuse. You are barking up the wrong tree. But I still disagree "fighting abuse" is in the witness job description, I bet if you ask around they will all agree. You can probably just realize that when you notice none of them do.
I am not barking but enjoying to talk to you. And wanting to have a reasonable dialogue.
Let me ask you again: since the code is inevitably related to issues such as the features that create an impact among the actors (all users of the blockchain), your issues are inevitably political in nature, you still disagree?
"Fighting abuse" doesn't need to be a job description since your work implies it. Is it correct that you want to protect your source of income? If it is, then taking measures against abuse or hostile attacks is the right approach. You agree? If you stop caring about your source of income, is it correct then to quit your job?
Yeah, they stopped doing that. And in disagreeing that this is their job, and as a consequence in stopping to do that, they and you need to lay down your witness position. And hand it over to more fresh folk. Why would that not be reasonable?
Can you answer my questions in a coherent way, please?
There is politics (which I never really got involved in myself) for getting votes. That isn't an excuse for lumping everything into the job description.
This is true for every stake holder, it has nothing to do with witnesses. In fact, every one who invests here needs to write posts daily, downvote abuse, upvote 10-100+ times/day, and potentially have a DHF proposal just to prevent depreciation of their relative stake.
How have I not bent over backwards answering your and other people's questions here.
Are you or are you not compensated for your witnessing activities? Do you run a server and do you participate in the voting process on planned code changes/hard forks, yes or no?
No, this does not apply to every stakeholder. I am not a witness, so I am not eligible to vote among you witnesses on planned code changes. That is different from a stakholding alone. I am in no way willing to give downvotes unless I officially want an office and would be compensated accordingly. Please read my comment here in the thread: https://hive.blog/hive-104500/@erh.germany/sdo8b1
There it becomes understandable how I view the political side on the issue of protecting the source of income.
Since I'm just a stakeholder who doesn't hold any official technical, policing, mediation/dispute resolution position, nor run a community, my hive activity is limited to exactly what I decide do with my valuable time and resources: engaging with a few of my readers and consuming a few other blogs.
If that's what you want too, not having an official position, why don't you limit yourself to your own valuable time. Only then your compensation as witness would be hard to justify, which would be logical to give up if you don't want to have any of the mentioned tasks.
I am not seeing you bending over backwards. And I really don't expect you doing such a thing. But through your words speaks a certain fatigue and annoyance. If compensation becomes such that it does not outweigh being tired of talking to people, stop talking to them, and stop being a witness, as a consequence of that.
Every stake holder is responsible for downvoting and protecting their investment. Rewards are a community consensus, not a witness decision. If you read the original white paper, it specifically mentions a crab bucket where community members are responsible for bad actors from getting out of hand. I recommend reading it.
I'm not going to go in circles about this though. You are free to think what you want.
Read that linked comment from my former response, in order to understand me - maybe afterwards you know what I am talking about and we can continue to debate. I long have understood you, and I don't agree so far.
No, "community members" aren't "responsible for bad actors" - what a bullshit piece of text; no offense against you. I've read it, be sure.
I think, however, that you lack somewhat of an understanding of politics.
I am very free in my thinking and do that anyway. LoL
If you don't want to go in circles, then don't. I freshly entered this conversation and would like it to be that way.