RE: Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
If the threat was real, then I would say that hard forking J Sun's Stake out of the new [HIVE] chain was justifiable.
The entire argument was about the "ninjamine". ALL "ninjamined" stake should be targeted indiscriminately.
Not just the portion purchased by JSUN.
Individual accounts should NEVER be targeted, no matter how big or how small.
Once you cross that line, you can never be a "voluntarist" "free-market" "libertarian-cooperative".
Once you start targeting individual accounts, you are a de facto CAPRICIOUS AUTHORITARIAN.
For example,
Click to watch 8 minutes,
If you CAN freeze people's accounts, then the government will REQUIRE you to FREEZE people's accounts, upon demand.
Libertarians are always harping on about the "NAP" (non-aggression-principle).
And yet, even these (even when pressed) will say that a "preemptive-strike" is sometimes "necessary" (I haven't found a single person who maintains the opposing view).
You can't have it both ways.
If pure (sincere) fear can justify a "first-strike" then "NAP" is worthless.
The biggest scaredy-cat wins (by always attacking first).
And a "stake-based-system" is not a "stake-based-system" if a cartel of (well-intentioned) thugs has the power to FREEZE anyone else's stake.
I agree. IMHP it is those ninja miners stake that has prevented the Block chain from achieving mass adoption.
What took place was a misguided preemptive strike, for the purpose of gaining complete control of the new Chain.
What is going on now here, is a little different. We have large stake holders who have clearly stated their hostility toward J Sun and the platform as a whole. They a acting against the best interests of the Chains survival.
Under these circumstances I would feel justified in taking the appropriate action of defending myself.
If someone is intent on murdering you and you do not have ability to prevent that from occurring, you had better take care of them first if you want to survive.
I would not freeze their accounts I would fork them out into their little chain and call their new Stake shit coin or something like that, and leave them with nothing of value which was their intention toward Sun and going by their actions, still is.
I dont see the facebook thing as being a close enough comparison
If want to shoot me down in flames its ok : )
The key point of the video is that (EITHER) the platform is NEUTRAL (and therefore NOT responsible for "bad content") (OR) the platform acts like an EDITOR (and is therefore LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for "bad content").
In other words, if a cabal of vigilantes CAN remove "bad content", then they are LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for any "bad content" they miss.
(IFF) the platform is truly NEUTRAL (THEN) only the individual account that posts "bad content" is legally responsible for that "bad content" and the platform itself and all other accounts on that platform are NOT responsible (immune to legal action).
By stooping to their level?
Isn't that just "lowest common denominator ethics"?
What moral theory are you operating on?
Are you "pro-authoritarian" (OR) "anti-authoritarian"?
https://steemit.com/ethics/@logiczombie/sexy-sexy-fascism
Are you saying that you believe that self defense is immoral?
I learned through bitter experience, that when we provide the opportunity for the Psychopathic to do harm, they will take advantage of it.
If we look to the willingness for prolific dishonesty by some of these guys we need to evaluate what is the best course of action for the Blockchain.
As a random example, mark y mark took a screenshot from steemworld and altered it to show that haijin (a bernie sanders account) was recieving 2% of the reward pool. The reality, it recieving 0.2% as shown on steemworld. This was published on bernies account.
When called out by public about this fraud, the original bernie post was edited to show that hiejin was receiving 12% with a new screenshot of a different tool. The creator of that tool had published an apology post stating that he had the math wrong.
The haijin ranchorelaxo thing was about normalizing flags. I know of person who was going along with it, then twigged to what was really going on and her account was destroyed, she opened a new one, destroyed and i dare say she was not the only one.
We can not trust people who keep telling us lies to manipulate us.
let me know your thoughts they are deeply appreciated.
This is pure genius. YOU WOULD IMAGINE THAT PEOPLE WOULD JUST LOOK AT STEEMWORLD THEMSELVES!!!!
This is why all "suppression", "censorship", "blacklisting" and "rep assassination" should be DISABLED.
If someone posts "truly bad (illegal) content" IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES TO CHARGE THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE.
If you have a video game that people are easily beating (pool reaping), THEN FIX YOUR GAME.
Allowing players to steal from each other (and pretending that's some sort of "fix") is INSANE.
(IFF) you can't prevent murder (by increasing the number of consensus witnesses to 200 or more) (THEN) murder must be treated as a perfectly legal activity (and fear of murder must be considered "just cause").
All Steem, and by extension Hive, is ninjamine. No tokens other than those mined were created except through the rewards pool.
The SF was nothing to do with how tokens originated. It was targeted to all tokens the founders stated were for development, and had used for that purpose.
Sun Yuchen had just used stake on Tron exactly as witnesses feared he would use that stake acquired from @ned. He had vowed not to use it for governance purposes on Tron, because of the exact same reason - it was genesis stake.
There is a singular difference between the founders stake and all the other stake that exists, and that is the representations made by Stinc and it's principals that it would not be used for governance, and had not been so used for years at the time of the sale.
These representations were relied on by investors and users of the blockchains, and the sudden application of that stake to governance would dramatically reduce the value of investments made that had relied on it's not applying to governance.
That reduction in value is apparent in the comments and posts since that stake has been used to seize total control of governance dismayed at that event, and deriding it with vehemence.
tl;dr if you fork out all ninjamined stake, all that's left is inflation, and those tokens that have been created by being paid to ninjamined stakehodlers as rewards.
The SF was to prevent the use of stake that Stinc had represented as not going to be used for governance, and had nothing to do with the mining origin of all stake - every bit of it except what has been created as rewards.
Thanks for clearing that up.
So, what if you "forked-out" all the stake that had been sitting in the same account for the same time period as the "ned-stake"?
Would you consider that "fair"?
I don't have any idea what you mean by this.
I don't really think much matters anymore about what stake is forked and what is 'sacred'. DPoS is simply the golden rule: who has the gold rules. On Steem that's now Sun Yuchen, applying the founders stake for that purpose. On Hive it's the old oligarchy @ned refrained from interfering with, because on this fork the founders stake is folded into the HPS.
That leaves the lesser players to @ned now completely in charge, instead of being lesser anymore.
None of the struggles over governance really matter, because the total market cap of all crypto is a trivial sum for myriad parties extant, and Sun Yuchen can be bought and sold for lunch money - as Warren Buffet proved.
Steem and Hive are only as decentralized and censorship resistant as folks with enough money to buy them decide they are, and that means they're not decentralized at all, but get allowed to play at it by their betters. I am resolved to enjoy the ability to speak my mind while I'm permitted it, and to seek other venues in the event these close.
That's really all we can do.
No kidding.