I saw the link clearly enough but you’re branded as SAFE ambassador and it’s an assumption that the evidence is there… just a friendly warning that errors follow assumptions. Even with evidence standing up a defence would be costly. Onus on you to prove the challenge… where you have a third party post who might not provide.
You are right about the legality of my statement. What you are confusing is the MaidSafe Company and the Safe network. SAFE is the network and I am branded as its ambassador. Obviously I am not a representative of the company. David made it clear that the company was legality helpless and there was nothing he could do.
But we as a community are not helpless and can choose what code to run on our computers, right? Personally, I cannot stand idly in front of evil…
@netbox offered to show evidence. Would it be ok for you if he show screenshots from the correspondence with them?
In my opinion, the sensible thing is to separate the community from the companies that develop the code from the very beginning.
David has repeatedly said that he wants MadeSafe to be one of the many code developers for the SAFE network. For this to happen, there must be a foundation with a separate official git hub and separate links to the code. Ie MadeSafe publishes the code, the community foundation approves it, and uploads it to its repository. If the community decides to change the code of the claiming tool to work only with the community network Poloniex will not be able to pick up the stolen (not legally proven) MAID.
Once the network is up and running and there is a conversion for 1:1 done, then alsorts of challenge to the majority will occur over time, relative to alsorts of interests and that SAFE is for everyone.
The base is that SAFE is for everyone, even those who you wish were not.
To be expected other currencies might arise over time, which allow users to dump safecoin for safecoin-cash or safecoin-principalled or safecoin-with-everything-but-not-that-one-we-don’t-like - but you’ll perhaps have to think of a better name.
Law and politics are like violence - people resort to them when they run down other options.
That Poloniex was able to get away with not honouring the reasonable expectations we put upon 3rd parties we trust, is as unfortunate as it is legacy. The best solution is to recognise Poloniex as part of the problem that SAFE is looking to solve but not be affected by that and corrupted by it.
Aside from the fact that Poloniex could mount a legal challenge on behalf the coins they truely do own for themselves.
Polo can transfer its holdings to a new address and convert to Safe that way. I think any way to prevent that is useless, unfortunately. Unless you want to scan the Omni blockchain for those new addresses and block them instantly too?
As above, I’m unconvinced. Certainly not before the 1:1 conversion is done.
Once the network is up and the topic revisited then it’ll be a sense of where the majority currency strength is. Personally, I try to avoid politics… it’s a dirty business resolving who is worthy… money the root of evil etc… it’s just a tool for manipulation… and money is inherently political; so, seeing SAFE rise above the nonsense for the conversion not excluding anyone, is important.