punished
Punished? Nobody was being punished.
Accounts were either actively participating in strengthening a Sybil attack, or they weren't. There's no middle ground there. It's yes or no. True or false. The code didn't care about politics, beliefs, nationalities. If you're to fork a chain to escape a sybil attack/hostile takeover, you cannot include the sybil attack/hostile takeover in the new chain because that would make the new chain pointless.
Since there has always been an appeal process on the table, all excluded accounts were handled fairly and professionally.
If they were to do what you're suggesting, and begin handpicking accounts based on beliefs, then there's a problem.
Or they had a stake of <1000 SP. That is where a bit of arbitrariness comes into play. That number is without any justification, and a more or less round number, which is why it was chosen. I think that this threshold shouldn't have existed, so it really was a True/False for supporting the attack with your stake.
Strengthening, not supporting. Remove the beliefs and politics since that did not play a role.
All witness votes were still in place when the chain was forked. Have a look at the Hive witness list. Those sock puppet accounts are still there. They needed to force those sock puppet accounts far down the list, right? So how would you do that? Am I missing something or is removing the stake backing those sockpuppet witness accounts the only way?
I criticized the 1000 SP threshold. I suppose there are many small accounts which voted for > 1 Sun puppets, which are not on the blacklist because they only have a small amount of Steem Power. This arbitrary threshold causes those attackers, who definitely strengthened the attack, since the do have stake, just not that much, to not end up on the blacklist. What I want to say, is that I would prefer to have either none of the non-stinc accounts on the blacklist, or all of them (that voted the Sun puppets of course)
So there's a exclusion list. A hostile takeover that needed to be weakened. It didn't need to be weakened all the way. And who wants to deal with an even longer exclusion list? This short list has already caused a stir.
I've been around for nearly four years. The narrative would have been spun into "Oh my god! Look what they did to the little guy! They hurt the little guy! Look how mean they are!" And that would have all been bullshit, but people have a fancy way of believing bullshit if it suits their twisted narrative. I've already seen some petty arguments and a lot of common sense thrown out the door by people who were on the list because of an error. Imagine all those folks whining about ten bucks.
But why did the 1000 SP threshold get setup and not a 10000 or even 100000 SP threshold. All of those would've weakened the attack more than sufficiently.
That also includes the belief that small stake is completely unimportant. This threshold is a political thing that should've not existed.
Either attack-supporting stake is removed, or it isn't. What we have now, is a half-solution, caused by political thinking, and beliefs.
Nobody said that. What you're doing is called SPIN. I'm stepping out of this conversation now because I know it won't lead anywhere due to the fact you're attempting to twist things out of shape by placing words in mouths and thoughts in minds that aren't yours.
I wish you all the best. Have a nice day.
Yeah that was rather unfortunate wording - what I wanted to say is that this includes the belief that small stake does not contribute enough to the attack in order to be relevant. Also, not putting the small accounts on the blacklist, because they would be whining around is 100% political.
Have a nice day too.
The hive blockchain is SAFU, so this is punishment.
My main issue is who was punished and who escaped. The dials and levels were twisted and pulled to make a very specific subset of individuals who would be caught in the net. By the time the fork had been announced the damage had been done. Actually, the most damage was done by the people who initially voted for the puppet witnesses, not the idiots who kept up the stalemate.
The exchanges, Binance and Huobi,were let off the hook due to the methods decided to punish enemies of decentralization. This is because many innocent victims would be punished in the crossfire.
This tells me it is about punishment and not about protecting the blockchain. Further, I think some people are sucking up to CZ binance as we speak to get Hive listed there. Hypocrisy?
Let's just sweep this under the rug and give them an airdrop. What's the risk? In theory,they can just buy it back and attack up again.
Why are you talking about politics? That exclusion list was never about politics. You can have your beliefs, but it's not about beliefs either. There's a post above you talking about an error in the code. Some of those people felt 'punished' and thought it was because about 'beliefs', and they were wrong, and I bet some will still continue to feel like they were being punished due to beliefs, even when confronted with the facts. And a lot of that has to do with how some of you folks spin it and turn it into politics and beliefs.
There would have never been an error if the exclusion list was left to the steemit accounts originally blocked during softfork 22.2.
More accounts just had to be added. Why were those with less than 1000sp safe? Why was it maximun 2 fake witnesses? Isn't 17 required. Face it a lot of these decisions were not technical. So what does that make them? Centrally decided by people who created Hive is my best guess.
From a technical standpoint, none of these accounts needed their Hive removed, as just removing Steemit stake would have shifted the balance more than enough to get 17 proper witnesses back and make it expensive to launch another attack.
Even if technicaly difficulties remained, it could have just been held back for a few months until we could fix things.
Someone carefully selected the additional targets and made the punishment permanent for reasons that aren't related to the technical workings of the blockchain. To say there were no political elements or beliefs involved is at least equally as deceptive as saying it was mostly bssed on that.
Even with the criteria explained within the post linked within the post above, you'll still continue on with your beliefs and politics? I find that behavior to be quite peculiar.
What could be more damaging? The facts? Or an opinion that denies facts?
To be clear I'm happy they are recieving their airdrop because of a computer code error. I just think it was a mistake to deny them and the other non-hive accounts an airdrop in the first place.
How does this opinion deny the facts?
The exclusion list was never meant to be interpreted as a final decision. Want to know how I know?
The included appeal process.
I wonder if there would have been hiccups in the code if accounts were voting for accounts in a position that no longer exists. Those sockpuppet accounts. Why include those and the voters if you're removing that hostile takeover element?
Once the dust settles, those voters can then appeal for the airdrop. Many deserve it and would receive it. Especially when someone like you votes for that decision, since it's what you want.
There's no mistake. Was it messy? Sure. I'll say it was handled poorly, but mostly due to a lack of proper communication. Far too many impatient people. Far too many twisted narratives. It made it damn near impossible to actually explain this all without the words sounding like they're coming form the devil. Even now as I try to explain to you, I've been having trouble getting through because of the wall of beliefs you've placed between us.
Fair enough. It isn't perfect (which is actually what I want to help with) and I do wish they had announced a timeline of...say 13 weeks. However infairness full details of the appeal haven't been made public left, which is also why I want some of my opinions considered or heard.
You could be right about hiccups in the code, and that would help explain a lot amd support your argument that it isn't about punishment. If anything, maybe it was easier and not worth the risk in finding out.
I'm glad no one is disagreeing with the right to appeal. There are a few concerns - does their future stake count towards yes. Also is there a NO side to beat so we can record positions? I'm hoping there is at east a no side and if it is razor thin, we consider their forfieted influence.
I do agree it is messy and complicated. The decision was made in haste amd for good reason. Now is a chance to tryband clear up confusion amd misunderstandings. I'm not here to make factual events confusing. I'm here to make people question if no airdrop is justified (punishment fits the crime). If the bloclchain is still under threat, yeah don't do it, but I think we are safe now.