You're mistaken. Hive was forked by nonconsensus witnesses. That's the difference, and it's a very big one. Steem forked with consensus witnesses with the sole purpose to remove funds from users.
Any person can fork the code that is nonconsensus without anyone being affected. With consensus witnesses fork, everyone on that chain is effected.
Since this, all can be proven Justin Sun runs the network, this post from a few hours ago makes it clear as day to a child that Sun does control the network: https://hive.blog/witness-category/@crokkon/steem-witness-ranks-excluding-dev365
Since it is known Justin Sun spins up fake accounts and votes them in from one computer, this is a Sybil attack on Steem, by definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
If 20 people had made this decision instead of one no one would back down and stop calling this theft.
I don't think the Sybil attack really has anything to do with the logic behind calling this theft.
Would you rather that Sun stopped buying everyone's bags and dumped Steem sub 1 cent?
Would this also be theft?
This is what we all thought was going to happen anyway.
I think it's cool that they are trying to keep the project alive and stem the bleeding.
We all knew that Steem was fucked when this all went down.
I'm actually impressed they've made it this far.
We all got more money out of Steem than we were expecting.
I 100% agree that this is securities fraud, by definition, and Steemit Inc is likely going down for this.
But, since you are now claiming that the consensus witnesses made this choice, doesn't that mean that they have the right to do whatever they want?
They are elected by DPoS and if there is consensus then it has to happen. This also means that the blockchain itself (all the coins) is the property of elected witnesses and not regular users/accounts.
Yes, users can vote to change the elected witnesses, but @dev365 must be considered as a normal stakeholder in court. Even though we know it should be a non-voting stake, in court, promises don't hold.
There is a difference between centralized governance and decentralized consensus. The only reason decentralized consensus is "wild wild west" is that there is no one to sue. You can't sue bitcoin, etc. However, when you buy 30% of the dev fund in an OTC deal from the founding company, it turns steem into a security. Now, there is someone to sue and a legal target here, if someone wanted to sue they could.
For decentralized consensus to steal funds, wherever the funds ended up would be liable, if they sent to null that would be a very weird spot and you'd probably be fucked there. But people steal because they are greedy. The decentralized consensus wouldn't hurt the chain as it would hurt their own investment. Justin Sun does not care what the west thinks of us and he can spin the media in the east as our voices are not heard. He has market makers to pump the price even if he steals from you. This is apples and oranges not only from a consensus standpoint but from an incentive standpoint.
Interesting as all hell. I have no idea what the result would be if it all got nulled. Guess it would partly be up to you too if that happened.
There is many choices available to seek legal recourse and/or pecuniary relief but see it flourish in the near future for all matters involving blockchain.
I can see a future where a specific decentralized environment and every beneficiary or participant of it is held proportionately liable to pay damages/ penalties for any civil or criminal case won in a court of law.
The defendant named would be that specific decentralized environment, as if the road upon which a car crash occurred was named as a defendant party to the plaintiff's loss!
If it does ever get attempted, then that's when the really spicy times begin. the mind boggles!
You made great points, but I still think this would be debatable in court. I don't know if there is precedent for such a case, or if owning 30% of a decentralized blockchain can make it a security.
It definitely is a reasonable argument, and I am curious to see how this would play out in court. In any case what matters is that you guys get the money back, and hopefully without lawyers.
It is completely wrong legally to suggest that in a DPOS blockchain all coins are the property of the elected witnesses.
If that was the case then the witnesses, rather than the owners of the coins would have to pay all the taxes!
There is already plenty of established law that cryptocurrency is property belonging to the legitimate holder of the keys.
Why is law of ownership being applied to cryptos when the whole point was to own your coins without any state intervening. Your keys your crypto. Not because of the law, because of the code. Your votes your decisions. Including theft. If you are against that then do not vote for witnesses that are ready to steal. If you are 51% attacked and have no choice, fork away. Simple.
You own your gold and silver without any state or bank intervening. Not because of the law but because of chemistry and physics.
That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't seek legal assistance if it is stolen.
Satoshi created Bitcoin to free us from fiat currencies and banks, not all government and law.
Crypto can achieve the former but never the later.
Even if all fiat currencies disappear and the whole world moves onto crypto and decentralised communities like Hive become the norm on the internet, there will always be a real world of governments, law, police, armies and taxes.
I understand where you're coming from but I think your analogy proves my point, not yours.
If someone steals your gold, you definitely should ask for legal assistance I agree with that. However, the executive order 6102 is the historical moment where the US government decided that you are no longer allowed to hoard gold and should use their notes instead. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)
This shows that governments have the power to "steal" your money legally! They can give you a note instead of a currency - again, legally! - and then years later sell the gold and leave you with worthless notes. That is stealing, but it is technically agreed by the majority since in a democracy there are elections.
In your analogy, the witnesses are the government, and they are elected by stakeholders (or the people in a democracy). Since the witnesses can pass and execute laws on the blockchain by changing the code, and since they have the approval of the majority (they are elected), why can't they steal your money legally? They can, and did so in the steem case, and with the support of the majority of the voting stake.
In a company, there is a shareholder agreement protected by law and therefore the government that majority shareholders cannot simply decide to vote to steal someone else's shares. However, in a DPoS blockchain, there is no shareholder agreement or contract protected by the state. The only rules are those in the code, and everyone who bought the coin knows this before buying the coin.
If you want to define what the witnesses/Justin did as stealing, I accept that in a conversation, but not in legal terms. I also believe they stole, and went again important principles that they should have respected, BUT they definitely did not break any rules or laws. They simply used the DPoS system, which we all agreed to be a part of.
I would insult Justin Sun gladly, but I wouldn't sue him.
Many of the cocksuckers and "accounts" on the list of what you call 'victims', are literally the biggest scammers and thieves on this platform. And you, stand right behind them and watch them carry out this "theft" and abuse on a daily basis.
How about you worry about the amount of money and abuse you and your own circle-jerks suck out of the platform and it's users, instead of crying like a little bitch and blaming someone else, for stealing money that you all stole from others in the first place.
Take a good look on the mirror, circle-jerk deceivers.