One of the main problems is that most people do not have all the facts of the situation. I realize that when I take something publicly to the blockchain that I have a responsibility to explain myself, but I am trying to balance that with commitments that I have made to keep certain private conversations private.
My wording was chosen very carefully for a reason, but that reason was not to present a threat. In addition to the post, there were also posts from a lot of other witnesses, as well as private conversations between some of the witnesses and Ned/Steemit. We really were doing all we could to assure them that there was no threat, and if you look at all the posts - there were more than enough witnesses who said they would refuse to fork under any circumstances, which ensures that any such fork would not have enough support to go into effect.
In terms of property rights, I'm not really going to get into an argument over that. I would ask you to look at the fact that I haven't forked (even though I didn't "get what I wanted" as some would say) as an indication that I am not going to toy around with these things. I do though still reserve the right as a witness to adopt any hardfork that I truly believe is in the best interest of the stakeholders and platform, and in absolutely extreme situations - that might include freezing somebody's account.
Here is one example to think about - if an exchange has more than enough STEEM on it to be able to single-handy take over all of the top 20 witness votes and they get hacked by a malicious actor who wants to destroy Steem - I would seriously consider it in that case. You can start to get less black and white - let's say that Steemit, Inc. somehow got "taken over" (not hacked) by a group of people that wanted to adopt a hardfork that would somehow screw over all the other stakeholders. Again, I might seriously consider it in that case too. Where does the line get drawn?
Honestly, it is a really difficult question. And a serious one too. Part of me would love to just take a simple "I will never do it" stance, but honestly - I feel that it would be irresponsible to do so. I take my job very seriously, and I reserve the right to use whatever tools exist in my tool-belt if I deem them necessary to do what is best for the Steem stakeholders.
The point is, it is not always black and white, and I am not going to make an on-chain commitment to never consider using it as a tool. I am also not going to cloud up a post which had a specific intention (to ensure Steemit that their funds were safe if they didn't power down) with a long drawn out explanation of when I found it appropriate to use this type of hardfork as a tool.
Thanks for the substantive reply. I clearly am outside the loop and not availed of information critical to deeper understanding. As I can only reasonably comment on what I know about, there's little more I can say.
I also agree with your assessment that all things aren't black and white, and there are certainly conceivable situations that may require action from witnesses that may appear surficially to violate sound principles, but actually be necessary because of them.
Just... Given the threat from multiple witnesses, I cannot see that Stinc can leave corporate assets in a position that leaves them vulnerable to that threat being carried out. Failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility involving such a critical corporate asset would be unconscionable, actionable, and criminal, IMHO.
Unaware of the insider details, I am unable to comprehend any other specifics that might mitigate this. Your reply certainly shows that you do take this seriously, and are capable of nominally parsing complexities of the matter I remain uninformed regarding. It's your responsibility, and you demonstrate here that you're effectively undertaking it.
Accordingly, recognizing my incapacity to cogently comment, I'll leave it at that.
Thanks!