That's a good start. I think that we still need some language that defines what chain it is run on. The intent is for it to be only on the 'current chain' which we all understand. The question is how to make that part clear in legal terms.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's the hard part. Everyone thought we all had the same idea of how Nakamoto Consensus worked, but it turned out there were two competing theories. It is likely that we will find the same thing with Steem consensus.
This is part of why I lean towards simply allowing people to use the code, without conditions. For me if we find some huge ideological divide on how to proceed among the Steem community or conflicting interests, it is preferable to simply allow a split than to remain in a toxic marriage like we have seen with Bitcoin. In the end, the market will decide what it prefers.
It is not our call, and Steemit has indicated that they are not ready to go that far with the licensing. They are willing to work with us to allow anyone in the community to fork the existing chain - provided the fork gains the approval of the witnesses. This is a huge step forward, and I think we should at least be happy with that.