Have you considered that the power down could make forking more likely (and that it takes 13 weeks so a hostile fork which occurs within 13 weeks still results in losses), or that the act of powering down may damage the value of Steemit's largest asset, or could result in losses due to the asset being placed in a less secure state of rest (on hackable exchanges, etc.)?
There are many different perspectives on what Ned should do to best protect the financial interests of Steemit's shareholders. (No doubt the above is far from a comprehensive list.) It can not be reduced to: anything other than powering down is irresponsible.
extortion via a threat of forking to compel @ned to comply
I've seen no extortion or threat. Please take care not to make unsupported accusations.
I actually have considered those things. You are correct that Stinc is trapped, and consequences are inevitable. However, it is facile to state that there is no threat to Stinc assets, or to ignore that @ned has a fiduciary responsibility to secure those assets to the fullest extent possible.
To analogize the basic witness posts I have read, many of them state 'don't power down and I promise not to fork your stake away'. Compare it to 'Be faithful to me, and I will be faithful to you', or 'Don't shoot, and I won't shoot.'
All these statements contain the implicit threat that if the 'request' isn't acceded to, the stated action will ensue. It's extortion, albeit implied rather than directly stated. I am reminded of the 'upstanding local citizens' approaching businesses and offering to provide fire insurance at substantial cost to the business owners and saying 'It'd be a shame if this place burned down. We can make sure that doesn't happen.'
I appreciate more and more your frank and forthright comments, but I don't agree that this isn't extortion, or that @ned has any choice but to secure as best he can Stinc assets by powerdown.
Thank you for a substantive and non-hostile reply. It is not hard to imagine you being under great pressure to be more hostile, and I take note of your forthright and responsible execution of your duties.
I am in fact under no pressure to be hostile, though I absolutely reject your characterization of my statements as something other than what was stated.
"By faithful to me and I will be faithful to you" does NOT imply that if you are not faithful to me that I will not be faithful to you. I may choose other options, such as accepting the lack of faithfulness but being less about it, leaving the relationship, etc. Even the "Don't shoot and I won't shoot" case (which has now been emotionally loaded by invoking not only violence, but deadly violence), is in fact far off the mark because, among other reasons, it offers a commitment to not shoot first. We have another name for that, it is called civilized behavior.
Actual logic and precision in writing is a thing. Not everyone may engage in it, but I do.
Well, don't pick only low-hanging fruit. I admit I am not the best writer in the world, and that I am terribly short sleep atm.
Please address the actual issue, rather than my failure to well express it. 'If you do X, I won't do Z', is essentially the format that has been used, and it implies that failing to do X will trigger Z.
You aren't being hostile, and my assumptions of the nature of offchain discussions ongoing aside (as irrelevant), it remains a fact that this is an existential threat that @ned has legal fiduciary duty to address, and I can not see any course of action he might take to secure Stinc assets from forking except the powerdown.
So, let's agree I am a bad writer, and get back to addressing the actual issues please.
I entirely disagree with the implies part. It expresses a logical fallacy.
I don't think we can get any closer to the actual issue than that.
EDIT: I took a few minutes to look up precisely which fallacy. I believe it is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
While it may not be a logical proof, most folks understand when the mobster comes into the store and remarks what a shame it would be if it burned down, but that he'd be happy to ensure it doesn't for a modest fee, that he's making a threat.
@ned states he perceives this as a threat. If my wife told me that if I stayed home tonite she wouldn't sleep with the neighbor, I'd take that as a threat.
I appreciate your forthright and informative elucidation on the matter.
Thanks!
Edit: just for giggles I considered the post regarding the fallacy mentioned. In fact, it does not accurately reflect the matter under discussion. The statements in question take the format 'if X then not Z', and this is different than denying the antecedent. Not gonna nitpick, because what either of us think isn't really relevant, since you're committed to your statement, and @ned is to his course of powering down. Nothing I say will change either of those matters. The implied threat isn't a promise to undertake Z if not X, but leaving on the table a threat Z might happen if not X.
Sure. "What a shame it would be if we had to fork" is not a statement that has been made.
You're continuing to misquote and project.
Furthermore "forking" is not a criminal or violent act, as is arson. People are free to run whichever software they would like, creating a fork. Others are free to run the original (or some other different) software. If there are two significant groups who want to use different software, then you end up with two chains, like ETH/ETC, BTC/BCH, and countless others. That is not equivalent to arson (nor theft, piracy, hacking, nor any such other inflammatory and/or defamatory terms which have been used in an attempt to manipulate and exploit the less technically informed among us).
I am confident the idea of metaphor and analogy does not fly over your head. I didn't ever conflate arson with forking. Since you erect and knock down strawmen instead of engaging substantively on the matter at hand, I'm out.