twitter replies for https://twitter.com/ancapCrypto/status/1243563800483123201

steem_tron.md

I argue that to have a decentralized chain, you have to respect property rights.

For sure, including those who are being told "I will move your tokens to Tron" by an attacker.

it seems like Ned sold Justin a fraudulent deal.

Agreed.

One should not need to uphold a contract that the previous owner is tied to

Disagree. Buyer beware.

actually have to proof that the tokens do not belong to Justin

Disagree. It was a temporary measure to determine his intentions so we could act according. The AMA was a joke and didn't answer any of the many questions we prepared beforehand and delivered to Eli. Communication was not happening and the threat to toke holders was very real.

A prior official legal document between Steemit Inc and the witnesses

Blockchains don't sign legal documents. Code enforces the rules, not governments.

Like an contractual agreement between Steemit Inc and Co. This precedes issue precedes Justin Sun.

This, I agree with. The exact use of these tokens were not clarified as they should be (such as the features added in HF14 not implemented)

some sort of legal document

Again, no. Come on, man. You have "ancapCrypto" twitter handle and you're running to mommy and daddy government and their violent legal system? Nah.

The blame should fall on the previous owner for selling a property that is attained under sketchy conditions.

Not how buyer beware works. You are responsible for what you buy. Due diligence matters. Justin didn't do that. His bad.

Afterall, the witnesses are claiming that those tokens that Ned/Steemit Inc holds dont belong to them instead the community.

Some claimed this. I didn't. I wanted clarity from the new property holder. I was a consensus witness at the time.

To freeze property that was brought legitimately is a clear violation of property rights. This is what i am against.

If someone attacks you (or directly threatens to attack you) using their own property (knife, gun, etc), are you within your rights to prevent the effective use of that property to protect yourself according to the rules of the voluntary system (i.e. DPoS and code)?

The witnesses started the this by freezing his tokens. A violation of property was first committed by the witnesses.

Disagree. This started as a threat from Justin Sun and Tron telling people what will happen to their property without their consent.

Acting to protect your assets is not wrong. It is disingenuous to blame Justin but not the witnesses. It is them who first started this.

The token holders demanded the witnesses protect their property from a Tron take over. They voted out witnesses who didn't do this (such as Tim Cliff)

Again, no. Come on, man. You have "ancapCrypto" twitter handle and you're running to mommy and daddy government and their violent legal system? Nah.

No i didn't make the claim that government is needed. https://twitter.com/ancapCrypto/status/1241044790919208961?s=20

For sure, including those who are being told "I will move your tokens to Tron" by an attacker.

The analysis of this seems to be flawed analysis and it must be done from the start of the deal to the end. Ned before having sold the company/tokens should have sought the opinion of the witnesses on the future of the chain under new leadership. Pretty sure the deal between Justin and Ned involves some sort of reintegration of tokens as part of advancing the chain(Ned claim that the deal would improve/advance the chain in a tweet right after the accquistion).

One should not need to uphold a contract that the previous owner is tied to

Disagree. Buyer beware.

2 parts to this. 1. If having been sold the deal fraudulently and that the current owner is unaware of the relationship between previous owner and his associates, he has no obligation to honor said agreements. Caveat Venditor aka Let the seller beware. Buyer beware is contentious in application in this context.
2. The agreement between the previous owner and his associates needs to be valid for the current owner to honor those agreement(Ned has stated that those tokens were sole property of Steemit Inc and no agreement has been reached with the witnesses. He tweeted this 3 weeks ago. The reason why i advocate for clearer distinction of property ownership (in this case a contract between 2 parties) is because if one were to ever renege on the deal, there is a way to arbitrate such differences. It provides prove that one is cognizant of the deal and has explicitly acknowledge that he has to fulfill his part of deal.

It was a temporary measure to determine his intentions so we could act according.

Freezing of someone's legitimately purchased tokens, is a violation of property rights. To even justify the freezing of tokens you have to prove that those tokens do not belong to them(they do not have ownership of those tokens). The burden of proof should be on the witnesses since they claim that the current owner don't own those tokens.

Blockchains don't sign legal documents. Code enforces the rules, not governments.

Disagree. Government is not required for enforcement of rules. A private contract between individuals is/can also be seen as a legitimate legal document. Read up on private law. I suggest Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard and Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. Don't conflate legal with government. Legality can exist without government.

If someone attacks you (or directly threatens to attack you) using their own property (knife, gun, etc), are you within your rights to prevent the effective use of that property to protect yourself according to the rules of the voluntary system (i.e. DPoS and code)?

Yes. In the above scenario, you are permitted to protect your property. However, in the case of Justin and the witnesses, his property was first threatened before anything else. It is also within his rights to protect his property. Refer to post above for more information

The token holders demanded the witnesses protect their property from a Tron take over. They voted out witnesses who didn't do this (such as Tim Cliff)

There seems to also be people who did not vote for witnesses to do so. As per according to Freedom Point. Only a small portion has voted.

Thank you for taking your time to read my lengthy post
I genuinely wish you all the best for your new chain.
Yours sincerely,
Another Agorist.

didn't make the claim that government is needed.

"law" or "legal" can trigger people who only associate it with government threats of violence. If you said something like voluntary arbitration, maybe people would better understand your intent.

seller beware. Buyer beware

The issue here is the harm done to those outside of the buyer/seller context. Claims were made about their property and they had zero say in the matter.

is a violation of property rights
his property was first threatened before anything else

I don't agree. The other two hour interview I linked you to had about an hour describing how, from one perspective, cryptocurrency isn't even property. Making these clear distinctions about who violated property rights is not clear. What is clear to me is what threats were made and what was actually done. I think it's perfectly reasonable to protect yourself against very real threats (that proved to be real because when those tokens couldn't be used, collusion and user tokens on exchanges were used proving the intent was (and is) certainly there to attack and centralize the chain to force changes against the will of the larger token holder community).

Read up on private law.
Legality can exist without government.

Noted, but again, there are very few examples of this happening outside of the context of the law governments recognize. Enforcement, in the minds of most people, involves the State. Expecting others to get this without deeper education doesn't help move things forward. HF14's operation to disable voting rights, for example, could be called "law" in your context. It wasn't implemented and the witnesses didn't force the issue, which was a mistake. Some thing Hive (or something like it) should have been created a long time ago because of stuff like this. Arguments about it being "their property" hindered that from happening.

There seems to also be people who did not vote for witnesses to do so. As per according to Freedom Point. Only a small portion has voted.

I don't think this is accurate. I used to run monthly voting engagement reports on witness voting. The data is all there on chain. Yes, there are large holders who have more influence than others, but a single person using exchange stake to vote is not in alignment with the intent of DPoS (IMO) otherwise why have 21 active witnesses? Why not just 1?

Thanks also for caring about these issues that will hopefully shape the future of a voluntary society.

The issue here is the harm done to those outside of the buyer/seller context. Claims were made about their property and they had zero say in the matter.

In this case, the application of seller beware would be more appropriate. It would be consistent to hound Ned. Ned should be fully responsible for whatever happened. This is tracing the whole problem back to its roots.

cryptocurrency isn't even property.

I disagree with this premise and this is probably why we have differences. Cryptocurrency is the fullest expression of property and individual freedom. It is immutable, permissionless and you truly own something you can call yours. Banks cant freeze your funds for no apparent reason, government cannot impede your economic progress if they don't agree with you. It is truly a marvel to behold. For the first time in history, we actually have a way to transact with one another without having to do so over a medium that is controlled: the fiat currency.

I don't think this is accurate. I used to run monthly voting engagement reports on witness voting. The data is all there on chain.

Hmm interesting, there seems to be a contradiction between a video freedom point has posted and this. I will read up more on it when i have the time😀. My hands are tied these days. I have a upcoming thesis to write for my masters program.

Glad to hear from another agorist as few as they come by these days.
Stay safe out there. The COVID virus seems to be decimating numbers. Always be mindful of your personal hygiene.

Otherwise, i shall end this off. Peace

Cheers.

And yes, Ned is (and always has been, IMO) the root of many of Steemit's problems.