I'm thinking that given these 'requests' to maintain Stinc's stake visibly, I'm surprised current witnesses remain witnesses.
It will certainly make it less secure to be a top witness, when the stake requisite to voting in a top witness is no longer visibly held by one account.
I reckon the threat to fork out Stinc's stake has made it impossible for a corporate officer with fiduciary duties to leave that asset in a vulnerable position. I don't think that legally @ned has any other option.
I reckon useful witnesses will turn to finding ways to actually secure the blockchain, rather than threatening to not do so if they don't get what they want, and working to improve it for the benefit of the folks that vote for them.
Make any sense?
Stinc's stake would disappear on the new fork, but still be intact on the original fork, provided they spin up enough witnesses to keep it running.
A fork robs stinc of nothing that is their's, it just moves the community forward without them.
I know you know better. A fork does a lot more than that. I'm not going to exhaustively list the new challenges forking will create, but am utterly confident that you are competent to do so with but a few moment's thought.
Since Stinc may have sold to Samsung already, this may be completely irrelevant anyway.
I've learned to believe things once they happen when we are talking about stinc.
Yes, forking could wreck us, it could also set us free.
I suggest a reasoned approach, the next gotchya needs to be fully ready to launch.
I still think we need one more reduction in hardware requirements before a fork is viable, but once we get that, all bets are off.
I have never done this
As we are engaging on these matters elsewhere, I will defer our conversation there.
Thanks!