RE: Witness Update - Running my own softfork (22.3)
As I was reading through this post and read how you agreed with most of the reasons for the softfork but stopped short of agreeing to implement it.. I wonder if you had thought about the principle applied when a person is in a mental health crisis?
When they are a threat to themselves or others, temporarily removing their rights and freedoms in order to protect all until the crisis passes? Now, I'm not suggesting Justin is in any kind of mental health crisis but it seems to me the analogy applies to the chain.
You've identified what could be real threats based on potential intent and decisions made by the largest stakeholder. Maybe that time out on his property rights is needed to avert harm to the community? Time created to work toward a real solution for now and the future.
I didn't add or remove witness votes based on their support of the softfork. While I have concerns about it, I don't consider them strong enough to want to push back on the decision. (even if it is more symbolic than actual push)
The decision by all accounts was arrived at through an unprecedented coming together and collaboration of witnesses and stakeholders. I think that is something to be celebrated and I do commend that.
Having said that, the effort is diminished by the number of top witnesses and stakeholders who chose to drop your witness vote rather than just respecting your right to thoughtfully disagree. It smacks of ganging up and takes away from the good collaborative work that was done.
Not that doing so would make a wit of difference to their standings, but I've given serious consideration to dropping votes on those who participated in the ganging up. That hasn't been removed from my table