You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
Nah, it's fine. I just wanted to clarify that I was
not calling the community organized criminals.
I can see both sides of this debate, and it's very
unfortunate that it went down the way it did. I
think forking was overkill if clear communication
could have happened and if dhimmels solution
was a plausible move forward. They stuck a fork
in it now, so I guess it is over and done, for better
or worse, consequences be damned. We shall
soon see how well it's received by bystanders.
The debate might be overkill or self defense?
I think the fork should have happened regardless. Given the freeze etc is not changed and the moment they got no further with the Korean community and neither letting go of the gas no matter how many "simple" options Justin was given. Ideally, they knew they were going to fork midway the snapshot should have been done and then they could have ceased all facades and just let it be. If he did not mess the chain then another snapshot could be done for more up to date figures because the main idea is to replace not be a fork of steemit and the plan is to exclude. I have no issue with that. It has been enacted with caution fair enough but it comes off as it maybe should as spiteful. Instead of showing strength and leaving it at a point of well we did try and then we let them be there was a push until the end.So probably overkill, effective but overkill.
Perhaps I should clarify that any "will of the community" is a de facto government.
Oh, I'm not saying your comment is correct or incorrect just that I didn't say it. TBH the whole situation is muddy and can be viewed from many different angles. In the strictly technical sense the new forked iteration wasn't the stake or property that Justin acquired or purchased. If you have a CD of you singing a song and you loan it to me and I copy it and give it back to you and then deface the copy with scratch marks so the CD doesn't work, I didn't destroy your property. You still have your CD of you singing. So there is the strictly technical way of looking at the things and stuff but then there is also the question of the moral perspective.
First off, I don't know how you could possibly come to that conclusion (who do you think the "real" owner is/was?).
And Secondly, regardless of who you or I or anyone believed the "real" owner is/was, INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS SHOULD NEVER BE TARGETED.
Rules change, I get that, I'm not against all rule changes, but any rule change MUST apply equally to all accounts.
Making special-temporary-one-time-only-rules for special-temporary-one-time-only-cases is a wide-open-door to FASCISM.
The forks suggested are an entirely new chain.
A new token which is airdropped. People don't
seem to have faith in his governance. If he creates
a divide that forces a split, then his ninjamine coin
will not be airdropped on the new chain. He'd still
have all of his Steem to sell, if it has value after he
breaks all the things and stuff by leading people
to a place where they don't wish to follow. What
he wouldn't have is whatever the new token is.
It's not ideal, I'd like for there to be only one
chain in the end, and for him to keep all of his
stake with the option to sell it. But his desire
to control the future of the blockchain might
end up being the tokens undoing and the
creation of a new community and token.
That certainly "sounds good".
However, it does absolutely nothing to fix the REAL PROBLEM.
They're still targeting specific accounts (airdrop some accounts and not other accounts).
And by neglecting to even acknowledge the REAL PROBLEM (de facto centralization by anyone with sufficient stake or by anyone powerful enough or charismatic enough to collude with major exchanges), they seem doomed to FASCISM.
Which is fine. We casually accept dictatorial control from our governments and our corporate jobs and our parents. Why would anyone expect the steem blockchain to be any different.
I just wish they'd stop droning on and on about "decentralization" and "protecting personal property" and "libertarian principles".
What a flipping joke!
Decentralization and dPoS do seem
to conflict with one another. I can
see why you're frustrated by this.
People believe both can exist, but
eventually they can clash. JS doing
with his dPoS breaks decentralization.
Freezing assets breaks dPoS. Maybe
one day someone can build a chain
that works like it says it should.
Is "dhimmels" solution to expand the "top witness" category to 200 instead of 20?
https://steemit.com/steem/@dhimmel/the-best-protocol-level-solution-to-the-tron-takeover-impasse-do-nothing
Thanks for the link, it appears they're simply proposing 1 vest 1 vote, which is difficult to disagree with, but I'm not sure that alone will "solve" any potential future hostile take-over.