RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Dear Blurt Community & Followers

in blurt •  2 years ago 

Withholding it from the rightful owners could be viewed (I view it as such) as a criminal act. If the bank inadvertently put money into my bank account I'm legally obligated to return it. If they have no intent on giving it to the rightful owners, they legally need to return it.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  
  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Yes this 👆

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

can't they just say "we don't support that network" ?

you can't "obligate" an exchange to support your fork


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·   (edited)

Yeah in the case of crypto you can’t liken it to a bank, but the airdropped funds would have been earned by virtue of user funds so ethically they should make them available to users or else they should burn them. If they are unresponsive the conmunity can burn them via HF

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

IF they move the funds THEN they must give them back to the original owners

IF they never move the funds THEN they are not obligated to do anything


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Yeah but once they move the funds it’s too late there is nothing we can do, the funds can also be used for voting on consensus which could be a risk, their keys could get compromised if they close down due to bear market conditions or regulation and suddenly you have a blackhat with keys to large sums of blurt to mess with consensus.

  ·  2 years ago  ·   (edited)

the courts are responsible for enforcing the law

you are not responsible for enforcing the law

the scenario you describe "blackhat with keys" could happen at any moment

regardless of what happens with these unclaimed exchange tokens

that's why it is important to maintain neutrality and focus on stability


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

In this case code is law and consensus witnesses are the enforcers. This is a community matter and governance can act in the interests of the community, those who don’t agree with governance decisions can support a different fork.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

ok, either that

or continue to engage in conversations on the topic


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

it is dangerously authoritarian to use the network itself to enforce moral opinion

targeting specific accounts because they "should" do something or "shouldn't" do something is the wet dream of central banks everywhere


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Bitcoin is the neutral network, dpos is 100% governance driven, on dpos governance is law. They are not the same.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

what is your personally preferred definition of "governance"


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Governance = trusted set of witnesses acting in the best interests of the Blurt blockchain and its community.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

do you think that perhaps, at some point, the function of the witnesses could be stabilized and the consensus increased to maybe 200 ?

you know, once the bugs are all worked out ?

or do you think "governance" will need to "actively manage" "the community" forever ?


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

imagine if we cut off people's phone service if they said things we dislike ?

imagine if we cut off people's water service if they did things we dislike ?

crypto must be a neutral network


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

didn't the same thing happen with bitcoin-cash ?


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

I'm not sure, I don't really follow other crypto much as I'm not a crypto enthusiast. Ultimately I believe it is a tool whose purpose ifs to further enslave us, and is being offered in the way it is now to get folks used to the system and in some cases become so attached to it that a religious like fervor is induced. None of which answered your question, lol.

I just know that the airdrop was not intended for the owners to be the exchanges, and is further an issue when one exchange in itself holds a controlling amount of stake and could at any time decide to install their own witnesses and do whatever they wish here with this stake that doesn't belong to them.