I'm not anarcho-capitalist. I'm just a light sympathizer.
I do not believe in ideologies.
As for code and nature, what makes you think the SiNMS is code, and not a result of greed? The existence of the SiNMS has always been wrong. It should have been wiped the moment it was discovered, or better: It should never have existed.
The witnesses were too passive. But it's not too late. Every Steem that was ninja-mined should be banished to @null.
If you disagree, then vote that way. Or better: Question your ethics.
Everything that is happening here is a reflection of the Steem Blockchain code.
We need to make a difference between everyone who ninja mined (including many current TOP 20 witnesse - Hypocrisy intensified), an investor who bought a large amount of stack, and anyone who benefited from the status quo then was suddenly enlighted when he realized that his position is threatened.
But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the shareholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?
Ethics don't have a place here since we all come from different cultures, hence why the filed should be leveled for fair play.
Apart from a small bump in price. There is no difference between Tron buying the stake from the market or STINC.
Ethics do have a place here, but which ethics we uphold?
Well, that's why we hope our vote counts.
If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.
Do you write code? It's incredibly troublesome to write good code, and even more troublesome to write ethical code. From my perspective, considering we are living in an age beyond the first years of Bitcoin, I think ninja-mining can only be done deliberately: And if it was, we should never have joined Steem.
But this is the home of my entire writing portfolio, it's up to me to defend my home. Is this your home too?
You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.
I remember discussing before the idea of how people can store images of underage pornography as text (then convert it using simple tooling) on the chain and how the witnesses should deal with it. Some said that they should fork out the accounts, others said this should not be done because it endangers the integrity of the chain.
People can believe in different ideas, hence they will support different things. But people can agree on the rules of the game, same as in football, and anyone who wants to take part in the game should in priory agree on its rules first.
If it doesn't count, then we must restructure the code until it does.This is the right path, to make changes that will make it extremely hard for anyone even with a large stake to play God. Many examples were presented that can be implemented to definitely solve the problem, and this should be the case right now. To make the proper changes and push for an HF along with the unfreeze of Tron stake.
Problem is, not everyone likes this idea since right now, many are at the top only because of Pumpkin.
You can't have an ethical code and anticensorship code at the same time.
I disagree. But we will see what happens.
Neither of us are in a position to write code or buy mass-amounts of steem, so what game do we play?
It'd be nice to play football with rules we've made, but what about the pig from whom the ball is made?
I don't think that ethics are as simple as right or wrong, or 0 or 1.
"I don't think that ethics are as simple as right or wrong, or 0 or 1."
This remembers me of a comedy when a girl asked her boyfriend after having unprotected sex with him if he had HIV, he responded by yes and no.
I agree, ethics are complicated and can be very diverse. knowing the ultimate source of what is right or wrong is still a question that is fueling the clash of civilization as demonstrated by Samuel Huntington.
Thank you for your time,
But why it should be wiped out exactly? is there a rule or a written statement against it? Some projects go with the ninja mine to reserve a portion of the token to finance the development of the chain and pay the stakeholders. Would that be a problem if the amount was small? Is Satoshi Nakamoto getting the first 50 Bitcoin considered as ninja mine?
The statement against it is what I've written: I only stand for myself here.
But let me get into details: If it was smaller, and not able to override all community-voted for witnesses, it would be less of an issue.
If it was truly used only for financing development, it would be less of an issue. There is no evidence that Satoshi has a bitcoin wallet, and if he did have 50, 100, even 1000 BTC, it would be less of a moral issue, considering it was the first coin, and he had no way of knowing if it was going to be worth a lot, or nothing.
You could have bought hundreds of BTC for a dollar back in those days, so if he had a large number of bitcoins, it doesn't exactly matter considering it was the first.
Beyond that, we must ask: Did Ned have the right to sell that Steem?
No. It was meant to be used for a specific purpose. Ned did not consult either the witnesses, nor the users. He simply made a decision which impacts many different people, and in my opinion, the decision he made was so incredibly bad that I will stand against it. Join me.
These are human answers. Not machine answers. They are opinion based, and therefore, superior to a machine answer.
When machines have opinions, I will trust them more.
Until then, I can only trust their developers, owners, and users. And if what the developers or users or owners have done is not right: Then it is up to me to right what is wrong.
And it is up to you as well.
And if we cannot agree, then we must simply go to war.
A contract that is solely on based "trust" is worthless. People are unpredictable and can change without giving an indicator.
I think the notion of machines doesn't play a role here because the code executes a set of rules written by a human after reaching a certain level of consensus.
Ned did many things wrong and witnesses too. But I can't understand the difference between:
Ned selling steem to one person.
Or that one person buying the same amount of steem from the market.
Or Ned selling Steem on the market then that person buys that steem from the market.
Or Ned selling that same amount to different people in the market.
(Witnesse did nothing when STINC was actually heavily selling STEEM)
Freezing those accounts is a political decision that hides a much worse and deeper history of incompetence, greed, lack of professionalism and accountability. Everyone is to blame here.
I do agree that the witnesses didn't do enough.
And you may be right about that aspect entirely, including the voting mechanism itself.
However, I think you need to see the differences in the different things you listed, considering that the differences do exist, and you took note of them just now.
It cannot be denied that the decisions, and the order of decisions, a human makes are different.
If a human wishes to have dinner, it does make a difference whether or not the animal is cooked first, or still living, when the dining begins, even if the end result is the same.
What I mean is that there are ethical ways to do things. There are ethical ways to sort different types of censorship. There are ethical order of operations that make sense on the context.
Machines in their current form do not see context, and you are ignoring context too when you see no difference between different things.
The numbers all add up to the same: Ned will sell all of his Steem.
But what matters is to whom, and why, and what happens next.
Just wrote a post on the burn. Agreed, it should have been dealt with years ago.