In my opinion the condition to exclude accounts that voted for 2 or more sockpuppet witnesses was too severe. The bar should have been set much higher. Someone who voted for a majority of community witnesses should get an airdrop.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Outside of principle, if I did believe in punitive action against people on HIVE based who they voted for on Steem, then I would agree with you. In addition to that, the proxy voters. Some of them may have voted for their respective proxies months before Justin arrived on the scene. If they were going to be punitive to accounts based on who they voted for, an innocent until proven guilty approach may have been a much better tack to take. As far as I'm concerned, people ought to vote for whomever, without fear of reprisal from the system which governs them. It is traditionally, one of thee major tenants in legitimate systems of voting.
I guess that the difference is that I do not see being excluded from an airdrop as punitive action. Nothing was taken away from them, they still have their steem balance and none of their inherit rights have been removed on steem as stakeholders. They were just not included on a new platform as stakeholders although their accounts names and public keys are replicated so they are free to use them if they wish to do so.
Imagine if in the real world you could create a whole new country out of thin air and replicate what you had in the old one. If two sectors of the population are unable to come to an agreement on how to coexist and one of the communities decided to pack their bags and start over but did not invite the opposing group, would you say that the ones left behind were punished? They still have their homes and jobs plus they even have more room to expand into.
That is the difference between the digital and the real world and also the reason that you cannot equate voting systems of the real world with the digital/blockchain space.
Well, their accounts and all of their content was taken and reproduced without equal consideration. This was done punitively based on who they voted for. I don't think anyone voting for a witness was voting for a chain split. Your analogy is decent, but I would say that these people should have been given a fair warning of a community split. Generally, if people vote for a leader, they are pre-consenting that if the other individual wins, that will be their leader. This whole Steem/HIVE debacle is fairly unique though, and this is because the blockchain fails when it comes to decentralization vs. dPoS. This means you have this errant situation where the chain splits, and the entire community went off and did their own thing. This outcome is not easy to foresee, and we can't assume that these individuals, despite who they voted for, would have chosen steem over HIVE, and this is because the event is such a rare occurrence. I think HIVE could be the bigger individual and allows these folks to choose their playground. Worst case scenario, they sell to market and we all get a stab at some cheaper hive for a short period of time.
One thing to consider is that on a DPOS system the defense of last resort is to fork the chain and exclude the "malicious" stake. I am not shure that we were at that point when the fork happened but it is what it is. If we had the chance to redo it and if I had a say in it the airdrop would have been more inclusive.
I feel ya, it's complex.