Hmm, okay, so if we go with relief package. Let's assume a natural disaster hit the blockchain because dPoS and decentralization cannot play nice together. The natural disaster was the chain split. Not very many people saw that coming, and everyone who got the relief package except for those who most definitely did not see the tornado coming. I say the ones who did not receive the relief package, did not see the tornado coming because one of the metrics to get the relief package was that they had to unvote proxies and Sun's socks before the chain split (tornado) was officially announced. If we make sure not to send the relief package to those that didn't anticipate the natural disaster, then what kind of relief package is that?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The "relief package" argument was the OPs idea not mine. I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of it.
Hmm, I'm not sure what OPs is. After going through the logic of the idea that it might be an entitlement, gift, or a relief package — if those are poor examples of defining the airdrop, are there any other ideas on what word might more accurately describe it? Perhaps it's a word that makes it okay to have disenfranchised those 300 accounts?
OP is the original poster. I don't think that there is another word that can encompass what an aidrop is in the context of cryptocurrencies. I dare to say that the vast majority (or a significant number) of all the coins out there were created as a fork of another or at least used part of the code from another project. Steem has had several forks in it's history but only Hive retained the transaction history. Most of them started from zero.
I have never seen anyone argue from an entitlement perspective for the right to receive coins from a fork of another chain. If we use history the closest one that I can think of that is similar to the HIVE situation was the one that created ETH and ETH Classic. The ETH fork removed coins from the DAO hackers wallet but ETH Classic retained them.
The whole point of the ETH fork was to reverse the hack of the DAO and the whole point of the HIVE fork was to remove the stake that was sybil attacking the chain. But the ETH classic supporters never argued for the right of the DAO hacker to retain the coins on the ETH side of the fork (to my knowledge). Hive is unique in that regard, the people that supported Justin Sun (and some people on Hive and Steem who did not support the Tron takeover) see the exclusion of certain accounts as unjustified (when it was the whole point of the split).
Thanks for explaining OP for me. I don't think that Sun or his socks should get it, seeing as how they were the malicious actors. However, a fine balance needs to be maintained to lower the amount of collateral damage. Not everyone is a single-issue voter, and targeting those with as little as 1k SP came off very tactless, spiteful, and unnecessary. This blockchain stuff is pretty complex, but I don't think the stake of those individual accounts would pose a threat to the chain. This, especially when you consider the fact that the ninja mine is secured, and therefore no longer a problem. I thought that was the biggest issue that people took issue with. I was pretty shocked to see the added 300 casualties. I mean, if we do go down this path, it might set a precedent that with each new fork of HIVE, perhaps some folks will have their stake frozen for how they vote. We've already seen Sun demonstrate that he's willing to go that far. I wonder how far this little game of tit for tat will go? It's getting pretty ugly, IMO. Good chat though, thanks for letting me pick your brain!
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.
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.