This means, for example, that the top bitcoin mining pools could likely freeze an account’s funds for a very long time assuming they decided it made sense. But generally it’s assumed this won’t happen,

This. Softfork immediately deployed after secret meeting, without any community validation, is the opposite of decentralization. Also, a precedent on freezing is a precedent, no excuses; the code was not

Thanks. Interesting tool in that link but is it accurate? I do not see any notice of the latest powerdowns by Binance and Huobi. Or will they start appearing only next week?

A hardfork does not require 17/20 in a strict sense: Yes, it is a custom to enact them at that point, and generally respected as a means to avoid a blockchain split. However it is possible to hard fork

Is there some API call or tool to look at the global sum of withdraw_vesting operations? how do you compile it?

It could be considered to be a verbal contract, but even in that case, I think the encumbrance would lie on Ned, who is the one who made the promises. He certainly did not do them as an "official

You can't stress too much that analogy. The property in question is a pile of fungible STEEM, not a specific land lot, and Ned had been already selling part of it those last years to fund expenses. I would

Ok, but you'll agree that sine die freezing those funds precludes from spending them on development, right? I see the point, but I notice that Steemit Inc was simply Ned's proxy. Promises made by Ned would

Sorry to tell you but Steem was never a democracy, nor supposed to be one. All "votes" are stake-weighed commitments. This is a plutocracy and what we are witnessing (sorry) is a whale war.

I'm trying to follow that argument but, I don't think I agree. Big amounts of the ninjamined stash has been sold in the past to other buyers, yet the encumbrance did not get transferred to those buyers.

Thanks Matt. I'll explore a bit find which topics are being discussed that I can contribute to