You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Truth About Tron
Sun spent $10m. You are claiming the witnesses and stakeholders involved in the fork do not have a collective $1m invested into the ecosystem? If so, no point in debating you because you are clearly not going to stick to any facts anyway.
It just takes a second to see who you are dealing with. Most (not all) of those opposing this change either are blacklisted, hate downvoting or have history of abusing the reward pool.
As is the case with friendly stranger
Are you planning to lock my stake too?
I don't think that anyone would lock your stake, because your stake is not ninja-mined.
The ethics of ninja-mining are simple: It is wrong to ninja-mine.
The only thing I can ask the witnesses is this: Why did the SiNMS not get banished or locked sooner? It should not exist.
There are much more ninja mined coins here. That's the problem.
All Steem originated in the ninjamine. Inflation and rewards have subsequently increased the total. The ninjamine isn't some potential line in the sand that can resolve inequity.
The inequity has always been inherent to Steem, and nothing short of dissolution can resolve it.
You're right. There's nothing good about ninja-mining, especially on chains where more stake equals more power.
We just gotta do what we can do, even if it's tough.
Those other ninja mined coins didn't promise to not vote, didn't get an operation hardforked in to decline voting rights, hf14, then not use that operation out of obstinacy/skullduggery, nor have they forced through deleterious forks.
@smooth and the one I won't name, amongst others.
We still don't know how much stake Ned still has, it can be hidden in sock puppets.
Any undoxxed accounts are suspect.
Freedom? Pumpkin?
Wtf knows?
The fact is, when it first happened @ned told us that the coins were pre-mined in order to stay within US federal regulations regarding setting up a company and its assets. They didn't want to do an ICO which at the time were under a lot of federal scrutiny.
The net result of course is the same, however the key point is, that the Steem is a registered company asset, and trying to prevent someone who paid for it access, will no doubt be illegal.
Cg
Perhaps the scrutiny was warranted, if this happens.
The point of law is not to enforce it. It's to maintain peace and fairness.
When that does not happen, then the law no longer matters. I won't tolerate you playing a game of legal loopholes. What matters is justice.
Or does this law matter to you? It doesn't to me. I don't think law is anything other than the abstraction of justice, codified, and that code can always be broken if need be.
And I think it needs to be broken, if indeed it is illegal. However, we must question: Is it actually illegal? The courts will decide if it comes to that.