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.