I wrote a post about proposed Russian sidechain a few weeks ago.
The main idea was if you can't prevent something then try to lead it
As @ned pointed out it is interesting experiment, and we could learn from it something useful for a future Chinese sidechain, which again I think is just unavoidable.
Of course it doesn't make sense to create a clon, I believe some real innovations could be introduced there.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Though I agree with your premise of "if you can't prevent something then try to lead it", this does not mean the community should support it or validate it in anyway. Also, though I agree the new clones are somewhat unavoidable, building things that work with steem but require a license or lots of human resources to accomplish ins could create a way to help keep the code from being constantly forked every time the broader
community senses "unfairness".
This precedent scares the hell out of people wanting to hold steempower (because if it can be forked at any time I might as well just hold my steem and wait for pump and dump sessions from newly forked clones (that I might make).
To me the idea of leading it would be promoting innovative uses of the tech. For instance, what is keeping steem whales from getting together and saying "we will put x amount of our voting power behind GitHub Chain being built and sharedropped on steem holders"? Then running an ICO for 3 million to help pay for it?
Instead we (mind you this is not talking about ned, but as a community) are leading from behind with a vanilla clone based on a single language in the name of "fairness".
In fact I was expecting the majority of whales to stop power down long before 40 cents for 1 Steem. Well, maybe that is an explanation.