It was never truly censorship resistant, without excluding the Steemit Inc stake. Which was only being done based on good faith and at this point, good faith is sadly not good enough anymore.
QFT
Now, nobody is saying that Steemit Inc would do that, but simply trusting would be foolish.
Steemit did do that. They went ahead and deployed its stake to vote in all of its own witnesses and force through a hard fork in order to reverse the incompetence of its founders who had their keys stolen (while most if not all of the other responsible large stakeholders were not idiots and did not get their keys stolen). This is documented on the chain. Centralized stake = not decentralized and not censorship-resistant.
Lol, bumbling idiots.
Now my question is who did the coding these two fronted for?
And, did i see a recent account recovery on a high profile account?
I saw that too. No idea why.
Dan can code, no one disputes that, and he had a few from the Bitshares team that he dragged over. Doesn't make him not an idiot who lost his keys and pulled out the
steemitmagic wandmagic ninja sword for a "do over".Ned can not code. Maybe a spreadsheet with columns. Maybe.
Lol, oopsie!
If creating bag holders wasn't the plan all along, why not use the decline voting rights op?
Smdh, crooks.
How long before trading volumes and inflation level the playing field significantly?
Are we really allowing precedence from HF4 to justify this softfork?
The context is that the historical record is perhaps interesting and relevant as a "by the way" but not all that important because:
It seems that the stakeholders and witnesses are done being foolish. But mostly you would have to ask them. I can only speak to my little 1%-ish view.