While I don't have time to watch this @abitcoinskeptic ...
"After watching the video, many of the witnesses do not appear suited for corporate legal arguments. They are by default developers and network administrators securing the blockchain."
... of this, there can be no doubt. My initial conclusion upon reading about the Soft Fork 22.2 decision ... Much better intentions and far better communication was needed ...
"Justin said prove it."
"... because the witnesses at the meeting had no legally convincing argument against this.'
Exactly. The point I made in my own post on this mess. Trust was almost irreversibly damaged and Sun is now in what will likely be proven to be an unalterably adversarial position. Without a legally binding position, which is provable in a court of law, I seriously questioned the wisdom of the Soft Fork 22.2 decision.
Without that, especially this side (wrong time to be figuring out whether or not anything can be proven in a legally binding manner ...) of the "malicious actions" taken, the Steem blockchain better have an outstanding negotiator of some sort of profitable "peace" offering to Sun. And the longer this is drawn out and the uglier it gets, likely the more profitable it will have to be ...
An old thought, from way back earlier in my career - "Don't take someone on, unless you are sure you can take them out ..." Plenty of "battle scars" and "war stories" to back up why I would say this ...
I don't blame youbfor not watching the video. There are plenty of opinions on it. I really hope they can see eye to eye, but it is unlikely.
I think the lack of legal clarity is why they are trying to win with votes and witnesses. If that Steem is secure, who can really police the blockchain? The witnesses come from a lot of different countries and many of the voters are unknown.
To be honest I think we had no choice but to take on Justin. Sure the approach could have been better and even if we win, there will be internal damage. I do see some community building and insights gained. But there are people doing things that will be difficult to forget.
In anycase, I like decentralization and I'm not excited about some proposals offered to move forward like removing all downvotes a solutely, or a 3~7 days power down.
Perhaps @abitcoinskeptic ...
... but unless someone could prove his bad intentions, which I have never seen, it would have been far more prudent to lead with trust, however skeptical anyone might have been. Take the high road. Let him take the first "hostile actions" and respond accordingly, based on unmistakably and provably clear intent ...
As it is (again, unless someone has proof otherwise ...), all that was offered as "cover" for the decision made was suspicion, possibilities, etc. Thinking you're going to "pull out a gun," aim it at your "partner," with whom you then expect to reach a mutually beneficial agreement strikes me as foolish ...
Too late now. Here we are ...
Yep. The least expensive cost for any transaction is one based upon trust. If there is a deficit in trust or it is absent altogether, then the transaction cost goes up. This one has already been expensive. The cost is still increasing ...
It's definitely a case of this
Another way of looking at this like when a local mining company buys a mountain you like to hike on to build a mine. Steemit was our mountain. Tron may legally own it and have permission to mine. Now we cannot go to the mountain anymore and mining is very likely to pollute the community.
This is sort of what I mean by saying a clash was inevitable. Especially given his persona. It reminds me of what I read about the Pinkerton gang and early 19th century strikes (even though they were more justified and actually abused). We are jumping the gun here, but it is social media where gun-jumping is the norm.