Could you give an example? Out of curiosity's sake. Where stake has been nullified without the consent of the party being nullified.
(I know I didn't specify this above... but "burning" stake is technically nullification.)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Johan's HF21 was copied from HF9 which was implemented (unilaterally by Steemit using their ninja-mine aka "premine" to vote in their own witnesses) to reset keys (to a key known only by Steemit) on a bunch of accounts whose owners, including dan and ned, were careless and lost their keys. Not only that but the group of accounts was not exact, innocent third parties' accounts were also taken, some returned, some likely not (because they were unable to prove ownership to Steemit's satisfaction). I avoided losing accounts by sheer luck (the time window missed my accounts by a few hours). In a recent fork an account balance was reset as it was able to obtain extra coins due to a bug. There are numerous others I don't recall.
Steem is based more on governance and deciding (sometimes unilaterally by Steemit) on the 'best' approach, than on absolute immutability, for better or worse.
I guess that is fair. Some could argue "intent of code" ala Dan Larimer to differentiate between the two, but I've never found that to be a convincing argument. I guess this comes down to an "optics" thing. I think it might be cleaner to start a new chain rather than to fork, but I can see how certain parties might interest in a fork versus just starting a new blockchain.
Which is why I use and participate with Steem based on it's representational (and entertainment) value rather than treating it as "hard" money. That being said, forking is built into the code, so regardless of what one considers the action, such a proposal is built into the rules of this game.