Information on Secondary Airdrop Proposals: Community Voting Begins Now

in #hiveblockchain3 months ago (edited)

social_hive_letstalkproposals.jpg

When the Hive blockchain was launched, distribution for the new chain was done at the time of the first block of the fork. This initial distribution had no impact whatsoever on existing Steem blockchain balances, and began the new Hive chain with balances mirroring previous activity. The blockchain created a new distribution and new supply similar to Steem's ecosystem, but with an emphasis on community responsibility and a shared goal of decentralization. Anyone with an existing account immediately had their name and keys reserved for them on the new chain to do with as they wish.

One of the best- but also most challenging- aspects of creating a new blockchain has been finding a way to balance the diverse opinions of our community. There are many different viewpoints on what a new chain should champion, and just as many strong thoughts on what centralization, distribution, and accountability should look like on Hive. Many people have joined in the buzz around Hive seeking a place that continues to expand on the values that brought them to the cryptosphere in the first place. With two blockchains available to everyone, there are spaces for all opinions on centralization and decentralization to flourish.


There are three related proposals for the community to vote on:

  • Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops.
    https://peakd.com/hiveblockchain/@hiveio/hive-secondary-airdrop-no-additional-airdrops
    • By voting for this proposal, you are voting against airdropping Hive funds to any account that is being considered by the community for a secondary drop. This proposal shows support for continuing forward with the distribution that was established during the first block of the Hive blockchain, and for not changing or adding any new airdrops going forwards.


What happens on Hive now is wholly separate from Steem, and one of the last big decisions to make going forward is the final airdrops put on hold for community feedback at the time of launch. The community feels strongly both for and against the inclusion of airdrops for people who actively supported centralization on Steem, and would like to have a say in the distribution on Hive. By using the proposal system we can create a space for the community to vote according to their wishes on Hive's initial distribution, without impacting the affairs of other chains.

It's truly important to note that being excluded from the initial airdrop does not mean that any account was forked out or disincluded from participating on Hive: many are already posting, participating, and earning, regardless. This is an important part of making a space where decentralization and censorship resistance can grow, if we put in the hard work to support it. Whatever the community decides via this vote relates solely to the initial distribution airdrop, and does not impact or block anyone's ability to use the Hive blockchain as they see fit, or the funds or culture of any other blockchain.

The voting period for the secondary airdrop groups will last for 8 days.

Completing the community vote is one of the last big tasks remaining so that a code freeze for Hardfork 24 can be put into place. This means that the results here will inform the hardfork code, a date will be chosen past where this code will no longer be changed, and exchanges will be given notice about the upgrade. We'll be writing another post in the next few days talking about the anatomy of a hardfork, and what sort of timing is needed to prepare for one.

The "No Additional Airdrop" proposal has an extended voting period well into the future. This will allow it to serve as the companion to any individual proposals or groups that may come up after the main voting. It allows for the community to give feedback on the airdrop outside of the context of the return proposal, saves anyone who chooses to create an additional "for" vote the cost of creating an additional "against," and allows those who are against airdrops to vote without impacting development of community proposals seeking funding unrelated to initial distribution.

You can use multiple interfaces to interact with proposals to the DHF.

Three of the best options available currently are Hivedao.com, the PeakD.com interface, and the Hive.Blog interface. These are all different ways to view the same proposals, so feel free to use whichever you feel most comfortable with. Remember that proposals are a core part of our blockchain, so don't forget to check on what else is available, and to come back often to see if there's anything that aligns with the Hive you want to see. You can vote for proposals, but also remove your votes for them if you feel they are not being fulfilled. In the coming weeks, we'll create a helpful reference post talking more about the DHF and proposal fund possibilities for the future of Hive.

Please help share this information and the secondary proposals to everyone who may be interested in participating in the community vote!

Sort:  

As one of the victims of malicious actions performed by Steem witnesses, that prevented me from controlling my assets (rewards for my 4 years of work dedicated to Steem), I'm going to vote for Proposal #103: "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops".

“This is a classic ideological split: the people who actively want a centralized chain can stay on Steem, the ones that don't will build Hive.”

Current voting is about two groups, and since there are obvious bad actors there, it's also obvious choice for me.

I see no reason to reward people who are actively working against what we build here.

That being said if there are honest mistakes I'm open to consider individual proposals when they arise.

I agree at this point the airdrop should be on an individual basis. I can not support voting for a list of names to be airdropped in either group nor in any imaginable way of grouping said actors.

I was waiting to see where those affected by the freezing would go. If you were inclined to be kind, so was I. Tautoko (I agree and I support you).

My English is not good, so I was hoping for a good answer like yours, I agree with you.

I’m so sorry for your loss Gandalf:(.
Anyway I 100% agree! + Since there are obviously individual cases will obviously be allowed there is no reason to include any (so vaguely) categorized groups just like that...Innocent people can make their cases and be judged by the community individually...

This was the biggest factor for me as well. What is being done on Steem now is criminal.

Hive Secondary Airdrop: For Individual Voters should be airdropped to these accounts .
If anyone believes in freedom they should understand the right to a free vote without punishment .
Here is an example in the united States people are receiving $1200
If the United States did like Hive then everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton should not receive the $1200

You seem not understand what the fork and airdrop is, thus your analogy doesn't make sense.
You are free to create your own hardfork and airdrop to whoever you like.

What's being Polish got to do with anything?

Maybe he wanted to say "polished" because he admires him for his skills?

@heimindanger where do you see coins being cashed out to bittrex?

To me, it is evident as "Virtual Ops" on the blockexplorer:

image.png

Umm..., I can't see the block_num, transaction_id or date.
But if it's so, I'd like to have comments from @blocktrades or @gtg on this.

I thought this was to be determined on a case-by-case basis? By lumping people together, we are throwing babies out with the bathwater. That makes not airdropping anything at all a foregone conclusion by my estimation.

there's absolutely no reason that it can't be done that way, for the few (or many people) who may need it. But making them have to step up first in this discussion and create that dialogue for themselves isn't a great option either. As I said elsewhere,

it would not make sense for the main account to "pick and choose" people based on emotions, who it knows, or who it likes, since it's a decentralized group that's making a baseline for the community to start at. The main lists are indications of who did way, as evidenced on the blockchain.

It's up to us as a community now to vote for what we feel is right, and to help separate out the real users from the shitty ones. I wouldn't want that dictated to the community- this basically says "here's the info- vote as you see fit, or throw more options into the ring." I personally feel like that's the way we make sure that the community can support those who should be embraced and supported, even with mistakes. It's been a crazy time and it's too easy to write each other off, but giving in to those who've harmed you isn't right either~ if there isn't some starting point, how do get anything done at all?

Appreciate the clarification. It makes sense that this is a referendum on whether they should have been excluded in the first place.

Hive Secondary Airdrop: For Individual Voters should be airdropped to these accounts .
If anyone believes in freedom they should understand the right to a free vote without punishment .
Here is an example in the united States people are receiving $1200
If the United States did like Hive then everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton should not receive the $1200
The vote on these will not be true view of the Hive community . You have to remember the witnesses are the ones that excluded these accounts from the airdrop . Many are afraid to vote against witnesses in fear of retribution from the witnesses .

That can still be done. And I would encourage individuals excluded to make a proposal.

This one is imo there to give the community a say in whether or not the exclusion of these accounts should have been done in the first place. That way, the hard decision witnesses/core devs who shaped the Hive HF is ultimately made by the community.

Yes this!!
If any users of PeakD.com that are on this exclusion list need any help let us know and we can perhaps help champion your cause.

I mean technically we don't know of any users of our site that are on the exclusion list... but if they are out there using the site already it speaks volumes to where their heart is at so contact us.

I am peakD.com user and I am on the exclusion list. How can i reach you. I need ur hand on this

I'm on the exclusion list, and I don't understand why?

This is kind of difficult for this one reason: The witnesses own most of the Hive tokens. They steer decisions here.

Thanks for the clarification. If asked I will direct people to create their own proposal.

I think it has to be case by case as otherwise this wont work.

There should be a list of those, like @steemchiller, that voted for both the sock puppets and legitimate witnesses in an effort to keep the peace and build bridges.
This was naive but mostly done with good intentions and I feel that an injustice was done to some.

The current options do not have the level of specificity.

That makes not airdropping anything at all a foregone conclusion by my estimation.

Actually I see it the other ways around because:

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”Benjamin Franklin

And looking at the current vote most users see it the same way.

I totally disagree. I would rather the community decided together the correct accounts to receive the airdrop than give 100 who didn't deserve it. Sorry to say but you are too soft in your thought process and being politically correct which does not work in the real world. Just my opinion as people need to be tough as look as what has happened on Steem since. How many people have had their accounts frozen?

There is a fine line between being tough on wrongdoer and being unjust. If you punish the innocent you are on the wrong side of that line.

It is not mutually exclusive, individuals can create their own proposal that can be voted by the community.

Given that:

  • funds of 8 accounts are frozen on the Steem blockchain
  • blogs of 11 accounts are actively censored
  • attempts are made by Steemit inc to further censor information they don't like
    (source: Steem Censorship Report)

And given that:

  • both groups in Proposals #101 and #102 include users voting for witnesses running Steem softfork v0.22.888, thereby supporting the above mentioned disapproved actions

I'm going to vote for Proposal #103: "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops",

This stance is valid unless Steem softfork v0.22.8888 is rolled back, in which case I might reconsider my decision.

I am open to considering individual proposals if any.

v0.22.8888 really cemented my decision too.

Greetings HIVE community.

My account (@lupafilotaxia), is listed here.

Like the rest, my account was not included in the Hive Airdrop, and this has had me worried all this time.

I ask you to support this proposal. In my case, I was unfortunately included, as I kept my 22 witnesses marked for some time, and when I completed the 30 by mistake I included incorrect witnesses, when my main witnesses notified me, I proceeded to remove the incorrect witnesses.

I have supported the community, for 2 years, and not only have I invested time, shared content, but I have also invested modest resources, but which are undoubtedly a large part of the effort of my work.

I decided to write these short lines, precisely to ask you to support this proposal: Hive Secondary Airdrop: For Individual Voters.

I'm against "Hive Secondary Airdrop: For Individual Voters" because that's about whole group listed there, however, I'm open to vote for your individual proposal.

If you are open for individual proposal you need to abstain.

Read what @enforcer48 wrote: Proposal #103 votes against Proposal #101, Proposal #102 and every future individual proposal

No.
I just need to vote for 103 and all other proposals that I'm for.

I think many people here are open to include individuals like you to a new airdrop. For that you probably would need to create your own proposal. I'm sure someone else will leave a comment with more details.

Quick tip for easing the voting on those proposals. I suggest you do it via https://peakd.com/me/proposals, click the Active button, and sort by Start Date. This will show them at the top of the list instead of being buried at the bottom.

Screenshot  20200503T161322.996.png

Even better :)
Also https://peakd.com/proposals/hiveio to skip the login (remove /me)

Yep that's way better.

I'm temporarily voting for no further airdrops, but I almost decided to go for proxies instead. I might change my votes if I see a good proposal from anyone, but as far as I know, no one I know supported the takeover. Some of you might be considering not voting, but let me counterpoint you with this.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

Make your decision, don't stay on the sidelines, your voice is essential, even if you have 10 HP.

good: "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

It is better to give your enemies a taste of generosity than send your friends to prison.

Honest people made mistakes in proxying their vote on this overly complicated, obtuse and poorly understood voting system. We have an opportunity to create a very positive sentiment of Hive in innnocent people on Steem by doing the right thing: giving proxy voters a Hive airdrop.
This would make Steem look even worse, as Hive's generosity and understanding would travel very far in the minds of people. So what if your enemies dump their Hive airdropped tokens? We will buy them up. I'm voting to give the proxy voters the airdrop.

That's a reasonable attitude. However, I would go even further myself. My post explains why.

The "No Additional Airdrop" proposal has an extended voting period well into the future. This will allow it to serve as the companion to any individual proposals or groups that may come up after the main voting. It allows for the community to give feedback on the airdrop outside of the context of the return proposal, saves anyone who chooses to create an additional "for" vote the cost of creating an additional "against," and allows those who are against airdrops to vote without impacting development of community proposals seeking funding unrelated to initial distribution.

I think this is an important part that everyone needs to read and reread.

i don't understand this.

It means that individuals can create their own proposals and be funded IF their proposal is above the 'no more airdrops' proposal. No need to create 2 separate proposals for each case.

Anyway, I'm sure that 99% here agree to vote for individual proposals positively (If that individual deserves so).

The problem is that a lot of people in those lists are mixed with people who deliberately supports Steem, and no one (myself included) is going to give that people wings to keep attacking us.

It means that Proposal #103 votes against Proposal #101, Proposal #102 and every future individual proposal

So more I begin to understand the proposal so more I'm with @nonameslefttouse : abstain!

After careful consideration, I choose to not participate.

I'm voting for the first two, but only in the belief that Justin Sun is permanently excluded. I hope this is so.

The reason I am voting to allow people who may have voted or proxied for 2 sockpuppet witnesses is that there is a genuine conciliatory reason why a non-malicious person might have voted that way. And that was a stalemate to force a compromise solution. It's clear now that Justin Sun is a fucking malicious actor, but at the time I had no knowledge of this. So I assume there were others out there who also had no knowledge of this. Likewise, the unlikeliness of a compromise isn't a reason IMO to exclude tokens to someone wanting a compromise solution.

there is a genuine conciliatory reason why a non-malicious person might have voted that way

Yes, and for such cases such as @lupafilotaxia, @foreveraverage or @soufiani there are going to be individual proposals so they can be re-considered separately from a group.

Individual proposals should have been done first. As it is this feels like Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them. For the Lord knows who are His.)

And that is not justice.

there are a few individuals that i would like to see reverted but that is not an option :-(

Yes, there is an option to 'revert', many people seem to miss a certain paragraph in the explanatory @hiveio post (also quoted in at least one comment below this proposal) where they say individual proposals can be made and voted for by the community so they get the airdrop :-)

hey, long time ago :-)

Well, i hope somebody will initiate some individual requests then and somebody else that i follow will rehive it

On a side note, i have been begging bitvavo for Hive fiat pair, i miss that so much now. If you and maybe some other users you know (all these referees of you :-)) request same, maybe they start to think about it

much love

I would feel more comfortable voting for an actual 4th proposal for airdrops on an individually assessed basis.

Were these proposals made before the HF happened, then I'd have said that exclusions shouldn't have been made other than to the JS owned accounts, but what's done is done.

For what it’s worth, it seems that the excludes list is made up of mostly bad actors but with some innocent bystanders in the mix. Granted, others may see it differently but, without naming names, that’s how I see it.

As such, none of the three choices for voting appeal to me.

Any individual can make a case for himself and if he's voted higher than the "no" he'll be airdropped.

Yep I am 100 percent in agreement with you on this.

Awesome. I think it is great to be able to decide and vote together for such an important point. Let's hope participation is high!

I was delegating my witness vote at the time and it's only by chance that I wasn't excluded from the airdrop. https://hive.blog/@scottcbusiness a popular crypto youtuber got himself excluded too...probably for the same reason.

So I go for proposal Option #2

actually, it's important to note that there was a post that outlined in detail one of the early issues with proxy and pointed out a few mistakes that were removed and will be dropped with no need for voting. Scott was on that list, will be fixed automatically, and as you can see not on either of these proposals. You can vote for one, two , all three (if you want), or none, and then any combination of individual or additional ones you see fit. I definitely suggest you follow the @hiveio account if you haven't gotten a chance to yet!

https://peakd.com/hiveblockchain/@hiveio/community-discussion-updates-hive-airdrop-exclusion-core-developer-meetings

To me, the threshold of 2 or more sockpuppets seems to be a little low. Was there some logic to that threshold or was it arbitrary?

I think there is a very large grey area here where a given account's intentions could fall either side of the line we're using to divide people in to one of two categories.

Two out of a possible 30 votes is only 6.66%; would it be possible to set a threshold of someone using over 50% of their votes to support sockpuppets, so maybe 15 or more out of their 30 (or less if they're not using all 30 votes) "feels" fairer in showing intention.

Regardless of where the line is drawn on a second airdrop, I absolutely support the idea of individuals being able to appeal and be included. It was great seeing the comment by @peakd and it would be great to see witnesses giving visibility/mentions/support to actions for individuals who may have been caught up in this unfairly/unwittingly

If you were voting for one witness run by Justin Sun, that can be considered a valid vote if you wanted him to be represented as a witness. If you're voting for two or more, you were actively supporting his attack on Steem's decentralization. That's how I see it, at least.

I get that position, but it just feels like it's a bit more nuanced to me - although I'm not sure of a fair way of deciding the cut off line and it obviously has to fall somewhere.

I have no idea how many accounts may fall in to this category - but if an account was voting for say 3 sun/puppet accounts, but also voting for 27 of the previous witnesses; that doesn't really "feel" like an attack.
I'm guessing however that most people took one side or the other - I have no data to back that up though.

@themarkymark I know you're curious about things, and back that up with quantifying data - have you done any sort of analysis of patterns of voting? Are there many cases where voting was ambiguous in terms of a split between the two positions? Or did most votes fall on one side or the other?
Is my hypothetical example likely to be affecting so few users its not worth the effort?

I have not no, I'm familiar with some of the cases but not all.

ok no worries - thanks for taking the time to answer

How are you determining whether a witness was run by JS?

By the version of the software (0.22.5) at the time. Only sockpuppet witnesses were using that version.

I would like to know about the way forward for the people who were wrongly omitted with the first airdrop. I am on the list of people who did not receive the first airdrop, but was supposed to receive.

Hi rynow, you actually were already mentioned in a previous @hiveio post as one of the mistakes that was caught in the script, having to do with proxying. You will be getting the drop in the next HF, no need to vote.

https://peakd.com/hiveblockchain/@hiveio/community-discussion-updates-hive-airdrop-exclusion-core-developer-meetings

No point of voting. A couple of whales will decide the outcome anyway.

Hi guys!
I can't see the proposals, are they already created?

yes, they are!

You can use multiple interfaces to interact with proposals to the DHF.

Three of the best options available currently are Hivedao.com, the PeakD.com interface, and the Hive.Blog interface. These are all different ways to view the same proposals, so feel free to use whichever you feel most comfortable with. Remember that proposals are a core part of our blockchain, so don't forget to check on what else is available, and to come back often to see if there's anything that aligns with the Hive you want to see. You can vote for proposals, but also remove your votes for them if you feel they are not being fulfilled. In the coming weeks, we'll create a helpful reference post talking more about the DHF and proposal fund possibilities for the future of Hive.

Choose the interface that works best for you, and you will be able to vote for them there :)
This is what they look like on hivedao.com, for example.

image.png

I was searching in peakd and didn't not found, now they are! Thanks!

Hey @peakd can you put the proposals list in any kind of sort ;) I can't find logic in order list.
Screenshot_20200503_204313.jpg

if you select "creator" you can get it alhpabetically.

Cool! Thanks!

Congratulations @hiveio! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published more than 10 posts. Your next target is to reach 20 posts.
You received more than 2750 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 3000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

Revolution! Revolution!
HiveBuzz - Hive Gamification Experience
Vote for us as a witness to get one more badge and upvotes from us with more power!

I am thinking there were still skipped.
@dftba
@friendlystranger
@truce
If I knew how to check whom I delegated too, I could give you a few more names.
@pfunk might know some.

Definitely follow @hiveio if you haven't gotten the chance to yet. There was actually an entire post on this that discussed the accounts that would be removed from the votes as mistakes:

https://peakd.com/hiveblockchain/@hiveio/community-discussion-updates-hive-airdrop-exclusion-core-developer-meetings

I was still skipped. Whats up with that?

@hiveio and @fredrikaa, do you have any info on this? I was wondering why it's taking so long.

So what's the purpose of giving these individual airdrops. We're they excluded from some type of funds. I understand that their accounts were preserved in the fork so did other people receive extra funds? I literally just signed on for the First time to hive yesterday lol. I'm just not certain I understand. I get that there's a balance that's set aside and is up for distribution. Where did it come from?

Their airdrops were created but moved to an account with no keys (the DHF), so that the community itself could decide whether to honour the airdrop or not for these accounts via voting. Otherwise, their accounts exist and are fully usable regardless of those funds. No one was dropped anything extra- all drops were done during the first block of the new chain.

Interesting. So everyone on hive received an air drop, but certain accounts were denied because they voted against hive. Now the question is whether or not to undo that decision? Is that the basis. I'm sure it's a little more complicated lol. But am I in the ball park?

That's basically just it. Trying to get the community to ratify a decision that was made hastily due to time.

i vote for case by case. so no mass airdrop. some people on that list don't deserve a thing.

interesting is this the reason why hive pumping. another test coming

I felt like the original exclusion list was a bit of a mistake, but seeing how many of them have acted since, I can't really see how bringing them back in as a whole would be anything but bad for the Hive. I think they would all dump.

Then again, them dumping wouldn't be all bad. It would be better for those of us who are still trying to power down from Steem. I'm pretty sure that Hive has more active users than Steem. I've got some thinking to do.

I see no reason to make airdrop for people who actively worked against Hive.

Yes there might have been mistakes, but we have individual case-by-case appeals for this. Blanket airdrop would only lead to short term hive dump on markets. Nothing else imho.

Agreed with suggestions, should give more benefits to the HIVE community.

It's the worst kept secret that the freezing of accounts on the Steem chain was retaliation over being excluded from the airdrop. There is no guarantee that expanding the airdrop will result in accounts being unfrozen. We've already taken most of the negativity over this issue, so meh water off a duck's back.
Voting for no-airdrop will all my pew-pews.

Voting on no second airdrop for those that chose to fracture the community.

Steemit is going away and will have issues.

I would lean toward #2 and airdrop to accounts who were proxied on condition that the proxy assignment pre-dated the voting of the sock puppets.

Some people could legitimately claim they were not aware that their trusted proxy was supporting the centralisation attempt if they assigned the proxy before it all went down.

Good point! Didn't saw the problemfrom this side.

With the malicious actions being taken on Steem now it is obvious that any newly distributed Hive would only be used to attack the Hive community and chain.

Voting No to all is the only sensible option at this point. Everyone who voted for sock puppets knew what they were doing. They were trying to gain leverage with the new big ruler of a centralised chain. As such they shouldn't want to be on a decentralised chain and a decentralised chain doesn't want people with that attitude having a say in governance.

I think hive community should support only users who stands with decentralization and voted for real steemit witnesses

The most important thing to do right now is to fix errors. Probably some people shouldn't be in the list in the first place and should receive the airdrop asap. That being said, I am open to consider individual proposals that fix honest errors but I'm not going to vote for a proposal that airdrops everybody.

@hiveio,
If you have more tokens to airdrop, better burn them all and let existing to bring higher demand!

Cheers~

Considering some of the people that would be included in proposals #101 and #102 I decided to vote for #103 "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops".

The values of those people are just incompatible with my beliefs. Even if a part of the people has only voted for the sockpuppet witnesses not for ideological but other reasons, I just couldn't justify the airdropping to the accounts that did vote for JS out of belief.

What is currently happening on the Steem chain just confirms that a major part of the people that voted for JS are just here for the financial gain and don't truly believe in blockchain.

Those are just my 2 cents and I don't have much HP, but I still wanted to share my view on the things.

I see it the other way around: If only one innocent person is on the lists I can't vote for #103 "Hive Secondary Airdrop: No Additional Airdrops"

I fear I have to abstain like @nonameslefttouse.

The good thing is that those innocent people can start their own proposal and we can vote for them individually.

Not quite. Read @enforcer48's comment.

Proposal #103 also votes against all future individual proposals so any future individual proposals will need more votes than #103. That will be quite difficult.

I'm begin tho think that @nonameslefttouse is right: abstain.

HERE a recap for italian users.

I don't think I like any of the three proposals.

  1. On the individual cases, many people knew what they were doing. Some people may have voted for positions numbers early in exchange for a health upvote, without knowing who they were supposed to vote for-or otherwise really didn't know.

  2. I am not sure of any differences between proxy.token and jestyy(sp)-if they are the same or different. Jestyy was rewarding people for proxying and delegating to him for years, and many south koreans before Justin Sun stepped in may not have been aware of or engaged in the political struggles.

3 So in the end, I think there still are people out there who deserves an air drop and not a complete no.

Maybe allowing a formal window to petition for funding over the next 2-5 years-raise it or waive it type deal-and translating it into the languages spoken by the users. I am not sure of all the features of steemsql, but it might help in the forensics who may have difficulty pleading their cause. Generally the attitude i believe should be in a light favorable to the petitioner, unless there be damning evidence.

I am supposed to vote for whoever I want. My reasons are my reasons. I should not be punished for it.

Your account name ironically contradicts your belief my friend. Voting is part of freedom of expression; yet you seem to think that there is a certain way everyone should vote, and that those who didn't vote that way should be punished. Please tell me how that is an embodiment of the first amendment. If you truly wished to maintain a freedom of expression, and a diversity of opinions, you would argue against the blacklist entirely.

Not sure why you jumped in out of no where, but sometimes it is difficult to jump in I suppose. I didn't say you couldn't vote, I didn't tell anyone how they should vote, I just said I didn't like the three option and explained why.

You are not voting specifically for who you want to vote as you allude in your premise; you are voting for column A, B, or neither.

I didn't say you couldn't vote, I didn't tell anyone how they should vote, i just said I didn't like the three option and explained why.

Although there might be a blacklist for spammers or other abusers outside of these debates, none of the people cut off from the air drop were blacklisted. They were not air dropped. Some continued to get residual hive rewards from their steem chain activity even if they didn't get the air drop, others could just invest in hive, some delegated hive directly to people left out of the air drop.

Though there might be a court somewhere to construe voting rights with the first amendment, textually and historically that is not the case. It is a mix of a representative democracy in the states chose to adopt from English house of commons, and derivatives from the Holy Roman empire commonly referred to as an electoral college at the national level in which the common man originally had no say. In the elections where people did have a say, it was typically for the head of house-which in some states included women but they kept voting federalists and subsequently lost that right.

I am not sure if there is a means to salvage your supposed firstamendment/voting claim, particularly when I specifically left the option to petition which is explicitly in the text of the first amendment. At best your arguments may fall more appropriately on due process grounds if this were an actual government. The code is law judge and jury had its mistakes, and made decisions ex parte and could not measure true intent. I don't think there wasn't really time to investigate anyways. I am favorable of people peacefully petitioning to be justly, proportionately, and easily compensated in hive for any mistakes caused in the forking process or other accidents before hand.

In the end your argument in opposing mine boils down to rewarding a set of people (Your_set-my_set) who engaged in knowing and willing felonious conspiracies to take over the ownership of steem [or otherwise have no interest in hive]. The true core of your desired set chose the Felon Justin Sun even with a fair warning about the fork, so please explain why that vote shouldn't be binding when they also had the requisite intent to cause harm in Justin Sun's criminal conspiracy.

remember. zzan is on both lists, and we seen what he allowed justin sun to do to darthknight.

Do or don't vote to return stake to users.

When I say you, I am referring to the individuals responsible

You assume that we voted for centralization. We voted to keep two factions at war in order to maintain decentralization. It was the best thing to do since all of the witnesses decided to act grossly without consulting the community. FREEZING STAKES IS NOT OKAY NO MATTER WHOSE STAKE YOU FREEZE (I don't condone it right now on Steem either, but you did it first. By doing it, you sparked this whole mess). The witnesses tried to turn the Steem blockchain into a piece of ransomware by doing something that was likely extortion (imo). That is not virtuous. The other faction's actions were not virtuous either. I voted to keep you in a stale mate.

Whatever the case, you have no virtue. This whole blacklist even existing is utterly absurd. It directly and ironically contradicts the principles you claim to hold, and it only proves that a power hungry and immature group of corrupt individuals created this blockchain. Now you are giving a fake reevaluation to feign moral superiority.

Hive is not legitimate as a blockchain. All of its transactions from before the launch date are void, and therefore fictional thanks to your airdrop. You sacrificed the legitimacy of your blockchain in order to spite those who you grossly and wrongly judged, and I hope you suffer because of it.

Maybe if you give myself, my father, and all of the others who were wronged their stake back I will reevaluate you, but the corruption (and fictional transactions) will always exist none-the-less. This whole situation proves that the system of governance here, and on steem needs to change.

This does not look good to the world, and it has hurt me in more ways than you can imagine. I spent the duration of High school thinking this was a community I could trust. Boy was I wrong, and man does it hurt.

I would vote for what I think is right, but I seem to be missing a majority of my stake.

Good luck in your "voting". You should have remained decentralized and left damnation to God. Hive may be alive, but principle seems to be dead.

Justin Sun's hostile attempts were seem on day 1 the moment there was talk about merging steem to tron [centralized btfs system] and doing a coin swap. Justin Sun would have illegally used the restricted coins to take over governance to achieve this, there was no other choice than to freeze the funds. When Justin Sun started to use his restricted tron to vote on project on tron, and his past project of disappearing competing projects, that proved there was an existential threat to the chain and the freeze soon followed.

I voted to keep you in a stale mate.

How long do you think the stalemate would have lasted? It was a ticking time bomb that would detonate as the exchanges unfroze their stake-and they were giving a priority of withdrawels to Justin Sun's accounts. They literally, according to Huobi, unleashed ransomware on their exchange servers to take control of the steem block chain. This wasn't a friendly game of hopscotch, that was a hostile takeover unlike any seen in block chain history and violated many laws in the process. When the exchanges removed their votes, he used steem stake that was restricted to never be used to control governance into doing just that-another illegal act. Your voting to keep things in a stalemate is a complete bullshit, you were enabling a felon to use illegal stake to gain at a minimum leverage he wasn't entitled to and worst more time to regain full unlawful control of the chain.

Secondly, no one took your hive [or steem] away from you. You voted for Justin Sun the scammer. You got to Keep your steem, and you suffered no harm.

In regards to allegedly not being airdropped hive, Your aren't pleading ignorance, that you weren't using steem at the time, that you didn't see the announcement of hive, nor that you were mentally incompetent, you are being vindictive likely because you knowingly had malicious intent and got left behind on a quite valuable air drop.


You still sound young. One common error is that a person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. I am not saying to trust attorneys either, but you need to start finding a better advocate for yourself. While people will make up their own minds and probably won't care what you or I say, what do you personally hope to achieve with your above argument except make yourself look like a foolish little entitled brat. If you think so poorly of hive, why would you want free hive tokens? So you can dump them? So will others on the same list think of you possibly harming their chances of being compensated?

One of the more sinister things about understanding rhetoric, is the ability of people to read into what you aren't explicitly saying or what they are trying to avoid admitting. I am not sure that you would pick up that skill in college, but you might develop that skill in litigation-perhaps even marketing. You might now pick up so easily on them when spoken face to face, because you are used to years of socializing with people normal enough to you to chose to be around-instead of deceitful people like Justin Sun.

Since you lost nothing, and are doing nothing to advance your cause to speak of, you should accept this as a free learning experience to do your own due diligence. Just about everyone made some painful financial mistakes in their early days of investing, mistakes are how many people unfortunately learn what not to do. Many people who have been hodling for years may feel a lot of pain.
Furthermore, take some time to study statistics and corporate finance-or better actuarial sciences. Get over the idea of fast Crypto money. Maybe, maybe not, the days of crypto mooning is over. A Crypto volitility still remains for daytraders. With a new proposed Steem tron token, maybe Justin Sun would have printed out say 400 billion steem, and gave all but 300M of them to tron holders to sell. That was a rarely address existential threat was the lack of details about the token swap and air drop. So just developing the skills of reading into what isn't explicitly being said isn't enough, you have to do your own SWOT analysis-and you have to study the history of the actors, including reading court documents. With the new dlive, btt stakers are stealing 25% of the profits from dlive content producers-including their donations. The vampiric sucking of the life blood from one project to fuel another of his choosing-one that could change to another token of his choice on a whim and without warning in his schemes

Furthermore, spend more time understanding the Chinese Communist party. They have their rapey tentacles all over the globe, and will disappear, financially punish, or otherwise cancel any speaker they don't like. Steem was supposed to be a first amendment refuge from the tech giants they control. You can understand why Justin Sun Steemit first development on the steem chain was to censor users, why the find ambition was to centralized it. It's not to say Steem doesn't have a future, it will likely be modified to be compatible with the whims of the CCP.

@soufiani don't miss it again.

What is the point of these votes? When 3% of the big accounts have 80% of the total power of the votes. Everything has already been decided.

Here we want to show the public that there is a possibility to vote. But this is a lie. I hope that everyone here understands this.image.png

I would like to see each user plead their case and it be put up for a vote. Maybe, some sort of class action where they can each add their name if they fill certain criteria and then we vote on that proposal.
My worry with these proposals is that there will be a few people not getting justice.

Hive witness is a gang of criminals.
They stole 20,000 of my hive tokens after the fork.
It also stole about 300 hives.

I'm a victim.
I was robbed.

In a way it is not that hive is different than steemit .
Same people , same accounts , same ways of farming , same everything .
No difference what so ever , we just switched from one piece of grass to another identical piece of grass . The only difference i see , is much more witnesses
because some people can afford now the 30$ per months .

What a vindictive bunch of twats the V.22.2 Cabal turned out to be. Such karma will doom this project in my opinion.