You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem Consensus Witness Statement : Hardfork 0.23 (Codename: New Steem)
No, you are not getting it. It doesn't matter what Hive puts in their brand new database. If they copy in bitcoin blocks, ethereum blocks, whaleshare blocks. It's their database, they can fill it with all open source blockchain material they can.
And users can then accept to use it or not, and exchanges can accept to list it or not. But it's NEW. Even though they copied over state from steem. It's a new copy.
It doesn't matter if that past material comes from Steem. It's a new database that is filled with selective material.
Steem is an old database and you're removing material from the existing database in a hardfork.
Those are fundamentally different things.
You should then go speak with consensus witnesses on Hive since a lot of them were OK with nulling the stake of Steemit Inc several months back.
They accepted the idea to null Inc just because of consensus (regardless of the reasons), it's normal they said, but now you are preaching as everyone from Hive that taking a similar decision based on consensus is a problem?
yea,
I for one did. And voted to undo the airdrop exclusion. I would have voted to not do this exclusion as well.
If someone told me early enough.
But both Hive and Steem seem to keep there votes secret until it's too late.
Actually, they were not nulling it ever. The discussion was always ask Steemit Inc to null it themselves or start a new chain.
No, we all read the leaked messages from the secret slack group.
Out of context, yes. No one was considering actually forking them out, the question was always either we leave, or they give up parts of that stake themselves.
The related PR on Github disagrees with you.
Again, the messages leaked by Ned prove the opposite
You can argue that a few didn't support the idea but most of them did.
It was a discussion. Ned posted half of the discussion, if most of them did, most of them would have forked Ned out a long time ago, that's a fact. Then we wouldn't be where we are now.
Oi, this conversation has gone in circles. New assets are new assets. I could take a picture of a billionaires USD account and give him a token I just made up out of thin air and it isn't stealing anything. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for this other guy to understand.
It seems that several points are being repeated. Let me focus on one thing.
Say (as you claim) HIVE is new.
then is it okay to move HIVE stakes? you can see the blockchain record. If there was no HIVE, then there cannot be any transfer. But there were transfers, which means that existing assets are illegally transferred.
In fact, steem.dao account still holds these "stolen" assets.
How can you explain this?
If the move of the assets is defined on the creation of hive and everyone that joins hive knows about this. Then it is fine. This makes this a part of the rule of the system.
(Similarly as inflation rewards, or witness voting, etc).
The problem is if you change the rules after releasing a chain. Then that is problematic.
When I look at the blockchain record, the transfer occurred before Hive blockchain started. You can see the record on the steem blockchain, and the action was completed by a Tron Foundation witness
https://steemd.com/b/41818752
Not sure what difference any of that might make, but there it is