https://global.bittrex.com/discover/response-to-the-steemit-situation
I completely agree with the 'Sanctity of the blockchain' & yes, personal feelings don't matter..
So, yes, no matter how it was reached, but the consensus of the blockchain agreed that the funds, i.e., 23,627,501 STEEM from those 64 accounts be moved to the @community321.
Sanctity Of Blockchain
The sanctity of blockchain states that one who has the key is the rightful owner.
The consensus of the blockchain agreed that the funds, i.e., 23, 627,501 from @community321 be moved to the main Bittrex holding account with a memo, "these are funds stolen by steem witnesses using HF23 May 20th 2020 - please return them to their original owners prior to the fork :)"
So, according to the sanctity of Blockchain, Bittrex main holding account is holding these funds and the sender expected them to return them to the original owners prior to the fork. The sanctity of blockchain says that they own the funds and they can do what they choose to do with them. The sender clearly stated the expectations in the memo.
Bittrex Trying To Distance Away From The Contention
Clearly, they didn't want to get involved into it and wanted to return back the funds to the sender. They said, if it is a case of hacking, the proof of ownership of the account, i.e., @community321 must be presented and they will return them back to the @community321 account.
Now, talking about the sanctity of the blockchain, who is the owner of the @community321 account, one who has the key.
Proof Of Hack
What are the relevant proofs that can be presented to Bittrex for the reversal of funds?
Ownership Of Key
The sanctity of blockchain states that it is the ownership of key that determines the ownership of account and funds. If you lose your keys, you lose the funds. There is no central authority that can or should intervene in the matter. It is the core principle behind any decentralized trustless network.
It also states that, you are the guard of your own wealth and that's what makes the blockchain technology truly useful. It was always the case until a few centuries back. People always used to be the guard of their own wealth.
The Guardian Angel who told Justin that, "Stealing is Bad" was in charge of the key. Who is in charge of the key right now? It's difficult to say. There is a great possibility that someone from the Anti-Tron group is still holding the key.
Some people pointed towards the AnonSteem services. The original wallet creator of @community321 probably used these services and a member saved the keys.
There were a number of users who lost the STEEM without even being active for a long time but holding a considerable stake. What safeguards their right of ownership. Bittrex ran the HF 0.23 and then the funds were transferred with the message in the memo that requested them to return the funds to those who owned the funds prior to the fork.
How conveniently Bittrex stated that the HF 0.23 and the transfer of funds are not related? What's the basis?
You do nothing about it and say you can do nothing about it, but how can you say they are separate?
You cannot.
Relation Between HF 0.23 & Transfer
The funds were "STOLEN" with the implementation of the HF 0.23. Yes, they were stolen as none of the account holders used the keys they owned to transfer the funds. Bittrex chose to run that implementation.
Bittrex received the funds, the same funds that were stolen with the implementation of HF 0.23 and expected to return the funds to the original account owners.
Now, they say these issues are separate and there is no place for feelings. Forget feelings, how are these issues separate?
Bittrex can say that the HF 0.23 was a contentious fork as it was meant to take away the funds without the use of keys. It is stealing. It is not 'Sanctity of Blockchain'.
Same funds were transferred to its main holding account. No, these two issues are not separate and Bittrex doesn't give a damn about the sanctity of blockchain.
No centralized exchanges can ever care about the sanctity of blockchain.
My opinion: Any centralized exchange can do only and only harm to the spirit of decentralization. Centralized exchanges have no place in a decentralized technology. They can never ever ever be trusted for anything.