isn't that mitigated somewhat by the removal of the 30X witness votes ?
also, don't the current active whales control more than 75 million tokens collectively (or at least half of that) ?
RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dear Blurt Community & Followers
Yes, that does mitigate that a lot.
I believe the foundation is holding 50-60 million total, not sure on how many tens of millions the FUD whale is in possession of. Enough he was able to block the DAO for awhile anyway.
End of the day, the tokens don't belong to the exchanges no matter how this is examined.
picking specific accounts for specific actions is against the entire concept of crypto
if you want to implement a "fix"
it must apply equally to everyone
I agree. Let ALL accounts holding other users Blurt hostage have the tokens burnt. Allow not one of these criminals to profit from their actions. Treat them all with the same disdain.
do whatever you want, but you can't target specific accounts
Bernie Madoff was ordered to pay 200 billion in restitution. He was targeted. You can't make him pay that money unless all investment advisors and brokers also are stripped of their money. To only target him because he was a criminal is specific targeting which we can't have.
A small percentage of folks use guns in the commission of crimes. We can't hold those folks responsible for their actions. That would be targeting. ALL gun owners should be the price and loose their ability to possess firearms or we would be targeting those who were the problem which would be wrong.
Some people invade other peoples land and are targeted with violence to repel them. To single those invader people out is targeting and instead all people should be killed.
Do you see the flaw in what you propose from my application of it above?
You can target specific characteristics, and that is the desirable method. There has been a criminal action taken by the exchanges in question, and they and they alone should pay the price, which is nothing as they weren't meant to become enriched for being thieves to begin with.
Discernment is based upon a specific targeting, that is crucial to proper function and correctness.
you're missing the point
the banks didn't convict bernie madoff
the SEC did
your crypto account is like a bank (but way better)
the blurt witnesses are running a network
not a police department
🤬
the telephone company doesn't convict people for bank fraud
This faulty comparison threw me a bit coming from you.
It's like saying apples don't fall from a pear tree.
Of course the phone company doesn't pursue over ban fraud, they didn't create money, the banks did.
Using your analogy here, the founders created Blurt much as the bankers created their fiat, so they would indeed be the ones to target specific destinations that weren't the intended recipient. Just as the bank would if they inadvertently placed money in my checking account that I used earlier as an example.
the federal reserve doesn't convict people of bank fraud
"More than 40,000,000 BLURT are powering the @BlurtBooster account"