Who would win the Steemit Standoff in a Court of Law?
I am pessimistic about how Steemit is going fair out over the next few weeks. The witnesses still seem to think it was OK to freeze someones funds to "protect" the network. Personally I do not know what they were thinking. The "Groupthink" theory which was the cause of the Nasa Challenger Rocket exploding in the 1986 is the only reason I think of that made the witnesses shoot from the hip without thinking about the consequences. He might do this and he might do that. Bullshit. It is all around greed and they were afraid Justin might rock the boat. Never soft fork a billionaire should their new motto. Imagine if it was Elon Musk that purchased the tokens. Would they do it then? I would say Justin would rather burn Steemit to the ground than give into this soft fork business which is why he is not powering down. And why should he? It's his stake. Ninja or no ninja. He holds shit loads of Steem. To be honest, if someone soft forked me I'd do the same but unlike Justin I do not have friends in higher places. The Steem community is now a laughing stock in the crypto world. We sound like a bunch of cry babies rebeling against a DPOS system that is doing exactly as it says on the tin. But he promisssssedddddd us...... It sounds like the little girl in the jeep in Jurassic park after the lawyer left her on her todd when the T-rex came.
I know most of the community is siding with the witnesses and anyone against this has been hung drawn and quartered among the Steem community but look at this as a business case. If it went to court in the morning, the soft fork would be declared illegal. A promise to use the ninja tokens to benefit the community would not be valid in the court of law. However a contract drawn up by legal teams to purchase millions of Steem from the companies founder is. The court would without doubt side with Justin.
Ned set up Steemit and he sold it. He made promises during it but did not uphold them. End of story. It is like a couple making an oath when they married promising not to do the dirty and end up divorcing because one of them did the dirty. But even at this there is a contract of marriage. With the ninja tokens there is nothing.
I once ran a Discord Channel and it was all going fine until it got big and everyone started to have an opinion on how to run it and started taking over. It just wasn't worth the hassle in the end. Steemit looks like this multiply by a thousand so no wonder Ned wanted new things. I just cannot see how this will be worked out. We love drama in here. But I see people are changing their views some what in here as they are sick of hearing the same old shite from the crying witnesses. Those guys started it so it is up to them to end it and the community is going to turn against them soon.
Consensus is law, so if consensus forms to freeze certain funds then that is the law. Exactly like consensus decided that the Eth hack should be rolled back.
Yeah, except for Fraud. In your world it seems that courts of law and their juries don't have anything to say unless it's a written, signed in blood contract, otherwise cheating, defrauding and breaking promises don't mean anything. How many idiots will undoubtedly defend cheating and fraud while browbeating witness and invariably community consensus as illegal, claiming that nothing was written down, all the while like a perfectly executed idiotic hypocrisy they think that the witnesses owe them anything. You know, I'm sure you'll find the contract that stipulates that witnesses may and may not. Fucking moron.
The Eth hack was a criminal act and consensus was made to freeze the stolen assets. There is a big difference here. Just because there is consensus on something does not mean it is legal.
There wasn't any crime, no funds or assets were stolen. Btw, the witnesses are no party to the "contract" you seem to think exists and the witnesses have absolutely zero contractual obligations, heck, the very reason that all of this technology exists is because contractual obligations are as obsolete and meaningless as you seem to think "promises" made by Stinc would be in a court of law. Finally, the maxim of law for you that blows the lid off the crook pot of nonsense you, steemit, and all other such insufferable moronic nonthoughts keep cooking:
I don't think a contract exists. That's the whole point of the piece. In a court of law. Justin would win. And the 50million Eth was stolen. It was exploitation of the chain but in essence it was theft. Save the name calling . It only brings your argument down to a degenerate level. 😉
What are you talking about:
Win what judgement exactly for exactly what crime? You seem to think that there's ANY obligations that the witnesses have to do anything but NOBODY, you twat, agreed to anything. In Writing OR otherwise. At the same time, you seem to think that SunFag is entitled to anything, even to suggest that "he has a contract", so which is it, do such explicit contracts mean ANYTHING and can the witnesses EVER be held accountable for any contract that they are not a party to? Ultimately, no crime. No contract. No JURISDICTION. Que Judgement.
Yeah, lol:
The witnesses are party to this contract and they broke it's terms about honoring all stake, no matter if it originated from fraud or selling babies, they made numerous promises that they broke!
Fuckidiots