This is simply theft of an existing asset.
The thing to prove for the thought exercise to work is whether the same code applied to a new asset is theft.
But I agree there never was an "airdrop" beyond the term used in the announcement of hive's launch. The ledger backs there was no airdrop, only past wallet transactions. That could have been handled better but would have required more time and been a much more processing intense operation at the time of actual forking.
Why does everyone think this was an existing asset?
Because they kept the same branding "Steem"?
Every hardfork is a new asset.
It's very clear.
New code; new asset.
If this was not the case the Hive would also not be a "new asset", which it "obviously" is.
Think about the difference between Steem and Hive.
Calling Steem HF23 an "old asset" and Hive HF23 a "new asset" is ridiculous.
If anything, Steem is the new asset and Hive is the old asset.
Hive has 90%+ of the Layer 0 intact.
Think about it.
Because the people don’t really give much priority to understanding the nitty-gritty of backends. They just see that token is same in their wallet and on exchanges. Didn’t require to be listed again.
If analysed purely on the technicalities, then yes I totally agree. Blocktrades pre-hive post about forks also backs it. In a future with blockchain specialized courts this may be an important thing, but right now I don’t see any prosecutor reject the case because the understanding isn’t that far yet.
Also, while I understand the devil’s advocate part, is this really how we want to mainstream? I know it’s not how I imagine mainstraiming will (ever) happen.
Well what I actually think is that we WILL be able to have our cake and eat it too. We can "steal funds" and when a centralized attacker "steals funds" in return we can take them to court and win and they can't take us to court. Only centralized authorities can be regulated. And they will be. That's the crazy part.