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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.