It's clear from the way you write the history that you perspective on the situation is different to mine. It's unlikely we can change that through discussion.
From my POV.
-"1) Secret soft-fork" - this was a defensive, temporary and reversible action, if the right discussion had happened here everything that followed could have been avoided. In my opinion the response that followed then proved that this initial action was in fact the correct thing to do.
Unfortunately this initial action had to be done in secret or the result would have been able to be nullified.
I think the way the 'airdrop' is being handled is not necessarily the best cause of action. My current thoughts are the ninja-mined stake should be moved to a code-driven development fund. All other accounts should receive their funds. I agree it should not be called an 'airdrop'.
I don't think the secret soft-fork was "defensive".
Would you think it's a "defensive" action if someone take your assets you bought at millions of dollars?
No I would think it was an "offensive" action if "someone takes [your] assets".
The difference is I don't believe any assets were "taken", they were placed in limbo to allow discussion.
Well, you cannot legally place something that doesn't belong to you in limbo either. It is called the act of taking hostage.
IANAL so can't speak to the legality of the situation. I wouldn't have necessarily done the same thing. I'm sure there are ways it could have been dealt with better. Perhaps an unbiased third party should have been given control while the options were able to be discussed. In short I haven't thought about it enough to give you a detailed response.
I wanted to reply to @tabris because I was a previous sponsor of Steemhunt. Most people will rage and shout accusations. I felt I could respond in a constructive manner.
I don't think pointing a gun on someone's head is a good way to start a discussion.
It was like saying "All your fund is in our control. You can just go away or give something good to us"
BTW, I also think both party have done something wrong with
22.2and22.5, and I didn't care because people act for their benefit is very natural thing.The thing I hate the most is spreading propaganda like "Capital vs Decentralized Community". See what witnesses have done for people in the opposite side - https://github.com/openhive-network/hive/blob/0.23.0/libraries/protocol/hardfork.d/0_22.hf#L15
I understand why the initial 'soft-fork
22.2' was seen as hostile. Ideally there could have been away to all parties to pause and have an unbiased entity step in to help mediate.It's very difficult when the dispute is over governance it's self. The tools in place are intended to deal with issues via governance mechanics. When those mechanics are in question I'm not sure what should happen.
I don't agree with the the 'selective airdrop'.
I don't see how it was a defensive or temporary move. Basically, it had BS written all over it. It's like saying, "Justin should come meet us because we took his stuff temporarily, but he'd better told us what we want to hear, else we'll probably not return it anymore".
How is this any temporarily to you?
Because it's a soft-fork, a change in future code does not need to undo any history.
If the community decided it didn't like that action after it was announced other witnesses not running
22.2could have been voted in. IMO if22.2witnesses were voted out fairly (non-premine/non-exchange stake) they would have accepted it.Hi there
I've been reading through many comments related to new hive chain and I've seen your comment too. Many users are being torn, however majority seem to be moving to new hive.
Are you fully moving there or will you stay on both chains? Just curious. I'm trying to figure out what to do myself.