'decreasing inflation'

✓

'...reduces minting over time."

✓

'The inflation rate decreases 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, app..."

✓

I am surprised by this, as I thought DHF voting worked the same as witness voting.

It was poorly written. It is not the same as witness voting as there is no ordering function. I've expanded on the information and corrected/clarified it.

The previous section provided this information

Originally, when that line was put in, there was an additional paragraph there that was removed.

This is not factually correct.

Clarified this point some. It is correct should the stakeholder be malicious. This is obviously not always the case. A colluding group of stakeholders would qualify under this as a group becomes a single entity upon forming. Too deep for the whitepaper ...

'Steem blockchain"

✓

'such attacks.'

✓

Strike. Unnecessary, speculative, and impossible to guarantee.

I will defer to you on this as I've written that passage with due bias and the desire to include the balance of power in the whitepaper.

The potential exists for attacks by rebel consensus block producers, that post blocks out of consensus, to actually implement protocols or transactions on a limited basis ..

No, that will cause forks. It was thoroughly tested.

Reduce ambiguity please.

Done. Another poorly written passage where it came out backwards.

Please very carefully consider this statement with an eye to decreasing apparent certainty regarding exploits.

The statement was originally added to prevent harassment of witnesses who miss blocks. Removing it entirely as there are better ways to control speculation and in-fighting among newer witnesses.

(to be continued)