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)
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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.