Posts

A Reply to Bittrex: RE: "Respose to the Steemit Situation."

avatar of @deniskj
25
@deniskj
·
0 views
·
4 min read

This is in response to your letter dated the 21st of May, 2020.

First of all, it does not escape our comprehension that the position that Bittrex is in at the moment is a difficult one.

The Bittrex exchange is meant to be neutral.

However, this week, Bittrex finds itself as the 'Chosen One' to arbitrate what very many who are not invested in the events of the HF23 fail to understand - THIS WAS NOT CONSENSUS!

As a minnow on the Steem Blockchain, I have been largely unaffected. It would seem the powers that be do not care for my meager 200 Steem Power.

They were after the big boys/girls.

64 accounts of some of the biggest Steem holders were on the 20th of May, 2020 drained in what you rightfully called a 'contentious hard fork.'

The question you probably do not have the answer to, and hopefully are investigating is, how contentious was it?


Consensus on the Steem Blockchain.


I draw your attention to this remark from the letter referred to above.

The fact is, we only interpret the data on the blockchain, and in this case, the consensus of the blockchain, regardless of how it was reached, agreed that the funds from those 64 accounts be moved to the “community321” account.

I also reference a section of the closing paragraph in the same letter.

We believe in the sanctity of blockchain, and as an industry, we need to adhere to the consensus rules of the blockchain without interjecting whatever our personal opinions might be. If we want blockchain to succeed, we must live by the rules of the blockchain.

In my opinion, the person who authored the latter statement surely did not write the former.

How can you believe in the sanctity of blockchain and still bury your head when a rogue crypto-anarchist decides to steal millions of dollars in Steem tokens under pretense?

How can you achieve consensus on a blockchain when all the witnesses in the top 20 belong to one person, Justin Sun.

That is not decentralized proof of stake on the Steem Blockchain. That is centralization.

Whether fortunate or not, the white knight chose Bittrex.

Why do you think that was the case?

To this day, no other exchange has put out a statement regarding the contentious HF23. They are all quiet.

Bittrex was the only one.

You will remember just a few months ago, Justin Sun engaged the help of Binance, Poloniex, and Huobi, who powered up customer funds, to conduct a Sybil attack on legitimate Steem witnesses which led to the creation of Hive.

Bittrex was again the only exchange that did not engage in the attack.


Justin Sun Denies Role in HF23


Justin Sun went on Twitter to let it be known that he and Steemit Inc had no role in the HF.

But how true is this statement?

Thankfully for Steem, all transactions are public record and we can investigate further.

The @dev365 account on Steem which is fully owned by Justin Sun and Steemit Inc started the process of removing witnesses who did not agree with HF23 and put in freshly created accounts 'sock puppets' to ensure the HF went through.


Justin Sun's justification for the theft.


Triple-A, a Steem Witness, also discussed the reasons behind this theft as well with Korean Blog Joind.io.

Finally, the 23.0 hard fork also includes responses to attacks that have been on the Steam blockchain. It is closely related to the aforementioned hard fork background. Account seizures are scheduled for accounts that pose a direct threat to the Steam blockchain or seize the legitimate assets of Steam holders. This was included as judged to be an indispensable measure to improve the network stability and user environment of Steam.

When Hive was formed, the Hive token was airdropped mirroring the holdings of each account on the Steem Blockchain.

However, the contentious Steemit Inc Ninja Mined stake was sent to the Hive DAO, an account that funds community-approved projects on the Hive blockchain. That was done in line with the Hive goal and Steemit Inc's promise to use the funds to fund development on the Steem Blockchain and not use it for voting which Justin Sun failed to do.

The accusation that Hive witnesses stole funds (Hive Tokens) from Justin Sun is completely false.

*How do you steal something that did not exist? How can Justin Sun claim tokens were stolen that he never even owned or bought in the first place?

The reverse is true on the Steem Blockchain.

Each coin that was drained out of the 64 accounts was both bought or earned on the Steem Blockchain through author and curation rewards.

For Justin Sun to go on and attempt to steal 5 Million Dollars of user funds in a psychotic fit of revenge is not only wrong but criminal.

In Justin Sun's deluded thinking, he figures if the Hive blockchain won't reward him with free tokens for him to profit twice from his hostile take over, he will take it from the accounts of Hivers on the Steem Blockchain in the contentious HF23.

Thankfully, an ethical individual intercepted the theft and put the funds in the custody of Bittrex.

I guess the question is, were they wrong to believe in Bittrex?

Please do the right thing and give the 64 users their money back, Bittrex!


Important links