**TL;DR: I assert there was no valid contract that could justify a fork on the same `chain_id`.**

> I have the liberty to run whatever code on my witness as I so choose.

You totally can.  But if your node runs the same `chain_id` with diverging code, it will fork.

Forks can either be resolved or unresolved.  Unresolved forks become their own chain.

Resolved forks means consensus was achieved.  Consensus is how we determine ownership.

This is the trustless way of determining ownership.  As opposed to the case of an ordinary contract dispute, which requires trust to implement, either trust in the parties or trust in enforcement.

A contract has four main elements:

1. offer
2. acceptance
3. consideration
4. meeting of the minds (mutuality of obligation)

In the case of Steemit, Inc., the offer was some kind of commitment involving the ninjamined stake.  I believe it was a nebulous offer made only to insiders, not investors employing reasonable due diligence.

**Is there some way to show that a investor employing reasonable due diligence should have been aware of these commitments (the presumed offer) without being an insider?**

From what I can tell, there's no mention of commitments that I could see on steem.io, as seen from archive.org.  But it is useful to look at it this way because it leads to a bitcoin talk thread.

On the bitcoin talk thread (the one linked from steem.io on 2017-07-12, as seen from archive.org: `https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0`) it's clear that the blockchain had already relaunched (red flag #1) and that multiple OS builds were not being provided (red flag #2).

I assert that reasonable due diligence would conclude `caveat emptor` would be in full effect at this point, even if the investor has no intention of mining, e.g., only buying in on an exchange.  I assert it was obviously an extreme risk, even by 2017 and after the roadmap was released, and that there were no reasonable expectations of any commitments.

The final message on that thread points to the next one (`https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466593.0`).  Same conclusion.

I would also assert that only insiders had direct knowledge of any credible commitments.