>If the consensus is that Steemit is a bad actor that's hurting us all then I have the right and frankly a responsibility to run code that honors that.

So, why haven't you said or done anything with regards to forking Haejin out?

Also, I think you don't realize the irony in what you're saying. You're saying your stake matters, so you are allowed to do anything you can to protect it. Yet, you're speaking against what Ned is doing to protect *his* stake.

And you describe the nightmare scenario of Ned spinning up 20 witnesses. As you put it:

>Do I want that? FUCK NO! But would I do it to keep the community as a whole if all other options have failed while Steemit was escalating the situation? Yes I would, and in a fucking heartbeat. This is my home and I have the will to do what's necessary to defend it.

See, their stake isn't gone. It's on the chain. He can run his own version of Steem that includes Steemit's stake by rolling back to a previous spot on the chain. He could even grant himself more Steem on his very own private Steem island. But Steemit isn't Steem. Steem is comprised of thousands of people and I'm here to protect their interests more than I am to protect Steemit Inc, which is essentially just Ned, while he consistently makes poor judgments.

I don't buy the argument forking is theft. I don't buy the argument it's piracy. I buy the argument that I get to choose what code to run that will benefit the most stakeholders, which to me is whatever keeps the population of Steemians growing. It's up to you the steem hodlers on the platform to choose me if they agree. So far so good :)

Replace "Community" with "My Stake," which is really what it's about, and you can see why if you were @ned, you'd do what he's doing. In fact, you're arguing for him spinning up those 20 witnesses, and voting himself in.

Heck, you know, now I'm confused. You speak of a peaceful solution. You speak of splitting up as being relatively peaceful. Ned is going for a peaceful solution. He's taking his toys and leaving. You know what leaving leads to? Lack of conflict of interest, and lack of conflict. So long Ned has the largest stake, then he's a constant source of contention, and will be in conflicts.

Once Ned walks off, it'd essentially be the same as forking his stake out. Except he's the one initiating it. So what's the problem? Ned *is hard-forking*, essentially, on his terms. So you tell him if he won't stop, he'll get forked out?! Come on.