RE: The Legal Basis of Cryptocurrency Forks

"...once you explain you took someone's stake and turned it into a shitcoin because that's basically according to the description above is exactly what you did."

If any witness explains to an attorney that this is what they did, then they're not very smart witnesses. And I'm not sure if you were simply making this argument as a way to point out that kind of ignorance or if you actually believe that this is what witnesses have done.

"These forks have been done at the disadvantage of someone or another for the advantage and protection of the top tier."

Can you elaborate on who these disadvantaged people are and who these "top tier" people are?

"They have been running around on here like some rootin' tootin' cowboys making up all the rules mindless of those it hurts including the success of the platform itself."

Who have been? Witnesses? Steemit Inc.? Others?

"Once lawsuits start flying..."

IF...and that's a very big "if." I doubt any lawsuits will ever be filed, particularly against mostly anonymous people running some different version of code on a blockchain.

If any witness explains to an attorney that this is what they did, then they're not very smart witnesses. And I'm not sure if you were simply making this argument as a way to point out that kind of ignorance or if you actually believe that this is what witnesses have done.

Basically the ignorance of it, who did it I have to admit I don't know. The last I heard after it happened was written up as people were still trying to figure out the "who dunnit" of it. lol. If no one still knows it'd make a great Steemit Who Dunnit story for someone, for a writer with a great sense of humor it could actually be quite humorous, they could play it out like a game of clue changing up all the characters to witnesses and all the weapons into the necessary technology parts it would have taken to accomplish it. I'd actually do it myself if I had that kind of technology savvy.

Can you elaborate on who these disadvantaged people are and who these "top tier" people are?

Anybody who invested their own money to increase their voting power and that voting power took a hit as a result of the last hard fork. I know you are going to be hard pressed to find anywhere in the white paper that there is a disclaimer that as an investor you could potentially face loss of value as the result of a hard folk because it doesn't exist. It does't exist for a reason, that reason being that no one in their right mind would hand over their cash if someone could just create a fork that took a chunk of it's value away. *I am not a legal expert on it but I do think in situations like these there may be requirements of commitment in terms that the paper spells out you can increase your return by investing would have required these accounts who were negatively affected to have been grandfathered in under the old clause. In essence meaning it could be done but it couldn't have been done to pre-existing investors. The losses any investors should have been seeing should have come as a direct result of decreases to market value.

The top tier would have been anyone who didn't suffer similar losses in the same manner and/or was made to look as though they were to suffer cut but the design of the folk made up for those losses in another manner.

Who have been? Witnesses? Steemit Inc.? Others?

Who ever designs and implements these hard forks. Are there any witnesses who sit down and participate in the structuring of a hardfork....I have no idea.

"Once lawsuits start flying..."

For the most part I agree but like I stated I still wouldn't underestimate Justin. One reason is because of the fact he isn't hiding under a rock somewhere, the other being would be that old cliche that money talks and bullshit walks and he has enough money to hire the best powerhouse attorneys to use legal arguments in court whereas the justification as seen by those on the platform for doing the fork isn't the issue involved as opposed to the question that it was done illegally, (The Oppression of Minority Stakeholder Law, though he may not be a minority stakeholder the tactic used is similar and applies), that that is the basis and legal argument for the suit and if the defendants feel harmed there is other legal recourse for them to address that issue other than to violate laws in place. Effectively shutting down the debate if a judge concurs and I've seen it happen or written about many times where a judge specifically looks at the violation in the narrow focus upon which it was filed, agrees with the plaintiff and reprimands the defendants that violating laws isn't a recourse to address their concerns and rules in favor of the plaintiff. You often see these types of judgement's with people who can afford to hire powerhouse attorney's who have the ability to argue furthering case points as examples of why the defendants counter argument holds no weight or basis upon which the plaintiff filed their suit. In a very closed gap focused narrative it controls the narrative and keeps the rest of the debate from public record and scrutiny. Effectively, like I stated, shutting it down.