Tomorrow at 14:00 UTC, Steem will cease to exist. May we remember the years of decentralized content and cryptocurrency that it gave all of us. In it's place will remain either another Steem altcoin or an imposter coin that masquerades as Steem while completely undermining the concepts of what a blockchain is. In either case, the new coin is not Steem. Unless a divergent branch continues, the original Steem blockchain will die.
Of course, all of that may not make sense, so I'll explain it in a little more detail with as fair as a perspective as I can have. First off, we need to define some properties that blockchains have in order to be considered blockchains:
A blockchain is decentralized in that multiple parties (nodes) are both generating and validating new blocks added to the chain. A blockchain is transparent in that all data is made available on the public ledger and can be referenced by anyone freely and openly. All transactions are also made public and can be verified. A blockchain is immutable such that all transactions locked into blocks can not be reversed. Lastly, a blockchain is secure in that transactions shall only be made by those that own keys that validate those transactions.
Some may argue that the current Steemit guiding philosophy lacks all four of these properties. While such arguments make sense from a valuation perspective, I'm looking to see if Steem version 23.0 is still capable of being both a blockchain that upholds the above four properties and the "Steem" blockchain that was launched in 2016. My conclusion is that Steem 23.0 fails to meet all the properties above and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate continuation of the Steem blockchain.
First, I will acknowledge that Steem 23.0 is both decentralized and transparent from a code perspective. Nothing in the hardfork changes the way the ability for nodes to communicate with the blockchain and nothing is done to hide access to the public ledger. All data on the public ledger will still remain as part of the chain and can be viewed by anyone wanting to access that data.
One can weakly argue for immutability as the history will remain immutable. Depending on how you view Steem 23.0, you can view it as an involuntary transaction or an erasure of the underlying data assets to certain entities on the ledger. I tend to see it as the first, but the argument for the second can be further justified. But I'm trying to give Steem 23.0 all benefit of the doubt, so we will go with the first viewpoint. Since the removal of stake is still a transaction that is kept track of on the blockchain, the chain itself is still immutable even though the value has essentially disappeared from that user's account. The transfer will still show up as a transaction on the chain.
However, using this interpretation causes a massive issue with the fourth property listed above. How can an asset or transaction be secure when an external entity or entities with no access to the keys associated with that asset or transaction can forcibly transfer that asset? That is the opposite of security. What point is there of having the key to the vault when one can open the vault without a key? Steem 23.0 fails to uphold the security of the users of the network by allowing insecure access to assets without authorization by the key holder.
We can therefore come to the conclusion that Steem 23.0 can no longer be the "Steem" blockchain because it violates the principle of security listed above. However, that doesn't mean that Steem 23.0 cannot be a blockchain. It just isn't the Steem blockchain. If Steem 23.0 establishes itself as a new blockchain at the moment of the fork, then we can view Steem 23.0 as distinct from Steem in the same way we can view Hive as distinct from Steem. The above properties are not violated in that since a new token is being generated, the rules put in place act as a crude means of limiting distribution of a new token rather than violating the security associated with a key. In this case, "Steem 23.0" token is just as valid as a Hive token. Both blockchains are legitimate blockchains, but neither blockchain is a legitimate Steem blockchain.
So, let's clarify the rules of succession for the Steem blockchain throne. Both Hive and Steem 23.0 are illegitimate Steem blockchains as they would both violate the security property (and maybe the immutability property). Thus, any nodes and subsequent chain running Steem 22.X should retain the "Steem" title and all tokens on that specific chain should be considered actual Steem tokens. This allows for the preservation of assets for all parties and all blockchains are free to run with the rules as they choose. Steem 22.X should also be the chain designated by all parties including exchanges as Steem.
Of course, there isn't a Steem 22.X. What I expect is for the Steem 22.X chain to die and for Steem 23 to become the imposter Steem and harvest all the work of the now extinct Steem blockchain and use it for their psuedo-blockchain. But this sets a bad precedent in that millions of dollars of assets are seized demonstrating a blockchain that fails to uphold any notion of the security and integrity of its user's assets. But let's say a Steem 22.X chain was able to survive. That would lead to an interesting debate and I would argue that like Hive, Steem 23.0 has zero right to the Steem title (as a blockchain) if a competitive fork exists with all properties still intact.
Regardless of what ends up occurring, Steem 23.0 will always be a Steem altcoin like Hive is. Just because they continue to use the name, doesn't mean their chain has any more legitimacy when it clearly cannot be both Steem and a legitimate blockchain at the same time.
