No, nobody is entitled to any airdrop for any coin (including those that received one). Technically it is up to those that create a fork to decide on the rules for the initial distribution (if there is one).
Airdops are gifts, for the most part meant to entice the people that receive them to become users of the chain in question.
Now, in the specific case of the 300 accounts I would not give coins to all of them. Some belong to individuals who openly sided with Tron and/or were outright hostile to the Hive fork. For them I say good riddance. Others were acting out of principle but in my opinion made a bad judgement. I have no problem approving proposals to the latter.
In the comment above you made reference to it as an entitlement or a relief program, but now you are calling it a gift? You seem like you might be a little confused or uncertain as to what exactly it was. The government prints money out of thin air and then awards it to cronies who give them political support via various methods. Is this gift you are talking about a kickback towards only those who supported the community witnesses?
The comment that I was responding to made the case that the excluded accounts were entitled to an aidrop using an analogy. I was trying to point out that even the relief package had conditions attached to it hence it was a bad argument.
Hmm, okay, so if we go with relief package. Let's assume a natural disaster hit the blockchain because dPoS and decentralization cannot play nice together. The natural disaster was the chain split. Not very many people saw that coming, and everyone who got the relief package except for those who most definitely did not see the tornado coming. I say the ones who did not receive the relief package, did not see the tornado coming because one of the metrics to get the relief package was that they had to unvote proxies and Sun's socks before the chain split (tornado) was officially announced. If we make sure not to send the relief package to those that didn't anticipate the natural disaster, then what kind of relief package is that?
The "relief package" argument was the OPs idea not mine. I just pointed out the logical inconsistency of it.
Hmm, I'm not sure what OPs is. After going through the logic of the idea that it might be an entitlement, gift, or a relief package — if those are poor examples of defining the airdrop, are there any other ideas on what word might more accurately describe it? Perhaps it's a word that makes it okay to have disenfranchised those 300 accounts?
OP is the original poster. I don't think that there is another word that can encompass what an aidrop is in the context of cryptocurrencies. I dare to say that the vast majority (or a significant number) of all the coins out there were created as a fork of another or at least used part of the code from another project. Steem has had several forks in it's history but only Hive retained the transaction history. Most of them started from zero.
I have never seen anyone argue from an entitlement perspective for the right to receive coins from a fork of another chain. If we use history the closest one that I can think of that is similar to the HIVE situation was the one that created ETH and ETH Classic. The ETH fork removed coins from the DAO hackers wallet but ETH Classic retained them.
The whole point of the ETH fork was to reverse the hack of the DAO and the whole point of the HIVE fork was to remove the stake that was sybil attacking the chain. But the ETH classic supporters never argued for the right of the DAO hacker to retain the coins on the ETH side of the fork (to my knowledge). Hive is unique in that regard, the people that supported Justin Sun (and some people on Hive and Steem who did not support the Tron takeover) see the exclusion of certain accounts as unjustified (when it was the whole point of the split).
Thanks for explaining OP for me. I don't think that Sun or his socks should get it, seeing as how they were the malicious actors. However, a fine balance needs to be maintained to lower the amount of collateral damage. Not everyone is a single-issue voter, and targeting those with as little as 1k SP came off very tactless, spiteful, and unnecessary. This blockchain stuff is pretty complex, but I don't think the stake of those individual accounts would pose a threat to the chain. This, especially when you consider the fact that the ninja mine is secured, and therefore no longer a problem. I thought that was the biggest issue that people took issue with. I was pretty shocked to see the added 300 casualties. I mean, if we do go down this path, it might set a precedent that with each new fork of HIVE, perhaps some folks will have their stake frozen for how they vote. We've already seen Sun demonstrate that he's willing to go that far. I wonder how far this little game of tit for tat will go? It's getting pretty ugly, IMO. Good chat though, thanks for letting me pick your brain!