If they decide to fork the chain, again,
Would you ask a refuge what they would do if they decided to "move" again?
We did not "decide" to fork.
We were punted off our own network by a megalomaniac vulture capitalist.
As if forking is something that we can just decide to do whenever it suits us?
There isn't going to be another fork.
There's no way to get the consensus required for such a thing.
To quote @theycallmedan, it requires an "alien invasion".
And if we have to go through that again, blog rewards are the least of everyone's concerns.
Perhaps we should be looking at better ways to build value that don't require permission.
That's the entire point of crypto.
Clearly, a decision was made or hive wouldn't be here.
The circumstances that precipitated that decision would vary in any future similar decisions.
Tell it to blurt, eh?
IF somebody with enough reputation in the community decided to breakaway there is no stopping them.
Can we get our current crop of whales to go along with a split, maybe, maybe not, but any split would likely have to take at least one of them with it.
Splinterlands is a good example.
We gave aggie the back of our hands and he separated as much as he could.
The same could be said for a number of other active users just as influential.
I mean blurt would have been more successful with a couple tweaks to its reality.
The firestick killed golos or we would have an already working model.
I should probably look to see what they are up to, I'm sure the chain is still running.
As you are fond of saying, we aren't competing within open source software, we are complementing.
Oh using my own words against me, eh?
That's fair.
I feel like Blurt is exactly the kind of thing that proves my point.
That was a completely illegitimate chain from the start.
There was no way to avoid forking out stake and keeping the governance decentralized.
Here is the Blurt thought process:
A few 'tweaks'?
You can't just say that without backing it up. The chain was dead on arrival. It capitalized on the emotions of the hostile takeover and tricked people that didn't know any better into believing it was a viable solution. It wasn't. It never was. It never could be. The only way to cut out cancer from a DPOS chain is to fork that power out of the system. Once it happens a dozen more times on other platforms this will become much more obvious. Books will be written about it. Luckily when it happened to us it wasn't a Sybil attack and all the stake we needed to get rid of was all stored in obviously identifiable containers.
I have to agree that the second layer is arguably going to become even more important than the main chain. All tokens and smart contracts are going to be outsourced to it. I mean at the end of the day all we can do is be patient and grind forward. Bear markets hurt but shit also gets done.