Auditing My Witness: Let's do our duty [v9] , checking statements against damaging HF
9th report on my Witness list Audit.
This is one of the most important tasks we, as a good steemians, should do in a periodical manner.
In my case, I will try to do this process monthly.
For your information:
Witnesses are the block producers on the Steem blockchain and their role is beyond important. These are the people that literally write the blocks and keep the blockchain itself online.
Steem operates on Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) in which all users vote to determine these witnesses, much like an election. The distinction here is that this election happens moment to moment and your votes never expire.
(Source)
Each account can vote for up to 30 witnesses, so, as you can understand, in a certain manner, it is our duty as well as our right as steemians to vote for witnesses which have contrasted solvency working as so, if we want to ensure the good stability and performance of the STEEM Blockchain.

My intention is to take my responsibility as steemian to "audit" my witness list and to try to find or maintain good witnesses and, of course, discard those that I think are doing wrongly, bad or with low performance or community commitment.
HOW?
Very easy, I am using this app. http://duplibot.com/deadwitnesses/ created by @deadwitnesses , you can check this post with the explanation on which information you can get there.
My "Acceptance" criteria will be:
- How many days have past since this witness last wrote a block to the blockchain (PERFORMANCE)
- Did the witness write a Post within a week?
- Did the witness vote a Post within a week?
- Is the signing key of the witness active? (If it is not, it means that this witness cannot produce any block)
Nr | Witness | Last Block (days ago) | Last Post within a week | Last Vote within a week | Signing Key |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | @abit | 0 | NO | YES | Active |
2 | @actifit | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
3 | @arcange | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
4 | @blockbrothers | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
5 | @blocktrades | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
6 | @cervantes | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
7 | @cryptopassion | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
8 | @curie | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
9 | @demotruk | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
10 | @dragosroua | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
11 | @drakos | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
12 | @emrebeyler | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
13 | @fulltimegeek | 25 | YES | YES | Inactive |
14 | @fyrst-witness | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
15 | @good-karma | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
16 | @gtg | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
17 | @holger80 | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
18 | @mahdiyari | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
19 | @partiko | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
20 | @pharesim | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
21 | @quochuy | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
22 | @roelandp | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
23 | @sc-steemit | 0 | NO | YES | Active |
24 | @steemitboard | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
25 | @steempeak | 0 | NO | NO | Active |
26 | @swisswitness | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
27 | @themarkymark | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
28 | @therealwolf | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
29 | @utopian-io | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
30 | @yabapmatt | 0 | YES | YES | Active |
Additionally, this time I am checking as well which of those witnesses have posted a clear Statement against the support and implementation of any Hardfork which would put under risks any steem account.
SUMMARY:
- Removing @fulltimegeek since his key is inactive since almost 25 days ago
- Adding @lukestokes
- The following witnesses do not express or write any statement against supporting any Hardfork which would put under risk any steem account:
@abit
@arcange
@blocktrades
@cryptopassion
@curie
@demotruk
@dragosroua
@fulltimegeek
@good-karma
@gtg
@holger80
@partiko
@pharesim
@quochuy
@roelandp
@sc-steemit
@steemitboard
@steempeak
@swisswitness
@themarkymark
@utopian-io
I would prefer not to do it but, as I said here, I find necessary a Public Commitment Statement specifying the "no-implementation, support, or condone of any proposed hard fork that effects the balances, keys, or security of any accounts on the current chain."...
Thus, I will review the list again in a few days, I hope by then some of the witnesses listed there will complete their statement...
For those still remaining in the list, I will unvote them...
What about you? Which witnesses do you recommend to vote and why?
*Reminder: if you feel like not having time to do a proper analysis and still think that mine is fair , you can also choose me as your proxy that will vote for witnesses for you.
Just, keep using your witness votes doing an important work.
Steem on!
Great update, and thx for keeping it on your agenda to check on the declarations! So valuable!
Thanks to you for the resteem
Posted using Partiko iOS
@toofasteddie, do you support the "proposed" hard fork or not?
Posted using Partiko Android
Obviously not
Posted using Partiko iOS
Me too. I don't support it.
Posted using Partiko Android
So? Do you agree with me that we should vote only witness that clearly state not to support any HF putting on risk Steem accounts stake?
Posted using Partiko iOS
Yes, absolutely! I agree with you.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks @toofasteddie YOU ARE MY PROXY
i still have no idea if i'd like a fork or not.. i should study it deeply, however... Fork's are part of the cryptogame, actually is the way to break when you want to follow another way.. so we all should consider it specially if what @jesta says it's close to the truth
i liked the @jesta point in his post
he said:
My perspective today: Steem at this point is corrupted by the "unaccountable actor" and the premine it performed years ago. Those who still believe in Steemit Inc won't believe this - at least not yet, but that doesn't mean it's not true. A centralized actor is in control of this blockchain. Not only a centralized actor, but arguably a malicious one who does not listen to reason, ever admit fault, persists down unproductive paths, makes rash decisions without thinking them through, acts superior despite consistent failures, and also attacks the decentralized community that makes it all possible. All while there's nothing you or I can do to hold them accountable for this behavior.
I have read it also, and, despite I agree I’m keeping my position about not supporting any witness willing to implement a fork that put on risk not only @steemit account but also ours...
This remedy is worst than the sickness itself and it would originate the end of steem as a blockchain...for sure, instead of 1 “unaccountable” actor we may have 20 which, to tell you the truth it is not convenient at all as well.
If you follow the news now, seems @ned is willing to negotiate with the community which is a good advancement.
Posted using Partiko iOS
when you have a wall infront you need "creative" ideas to move positions, and that's what i like from @jesta manifest... look now.. seems @ned is willing to negotiate .. is the consequence of seing a wolf ;)
I would not support any fork of Steem with a targeted removal of stake, even if that fork has an entirely new brand, name, tickers etc.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks...may I ask you why you did not write a post about? I think it’s important...
Posted using Partiko iOS
It would not represent any change of policy for me. It should be obvious that nullifying stake is a complete no-go area; and I have been open that I've absolutely no problem with Steemit having a founder's stake which came in the form of the ninja mine. In fact I think that's a major part of why Steem has any value at all, and that it grew up in users at a time when no crypto projects had real users.
Agree. For me it should be obvious also but we must to be sure that other big witnesses think the same that’s why, sometimes a clear statement is much better than nothing...
Thanks for your clarification.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Hi @toofasteddie!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 4.025 which ranks you at #3599 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 3 places in the last three days (old rank 3602).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 224 contributions, your post is ranked at #56.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server