Hi,
I have a question.
Witnesses decided this soft fork by themselves without talking with community.
Is it right action for community?
Did you talk with staking holder and people who voted you?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hi,
I have a question.
Witnesses decided this soft fork by themselves without talking with community.
Is it right action for community?
Did you talk with staking holder and people who voted you?
Witnesses are delegatees, you delegate your stake to witnesses so that they can do the "gate keeping" of the blockchain. We've seen a threat and we have acted to keep the blockchain safe.
There was not a public discussion before that soft fork because of the level of the risk. Seeing this was a huge red-flag for example. Imagine, we discuss this on chain before that, the ninja-mined stake (promised to be stay neutral on a social contract) may single handedly rule out all witnesses, making the blockchain a one-man party.
SF doesn't nullify any account and it's reversible. We just wanted to be safe until we get a direct communication line from TRON side.
I see. I understand what you said. But, I think it is a little bit coercive.
Even if witnesses discussed by themselves (how many people included on discussion), this post includes stakeholders...
Thank you for answering kindly.
While there wasn't a complete community poll, there were extensive & long open-forums where tons of members shown up ( the palnet discord literally froze on my computer after the ned & justin livestream where aggroed talked with dozens of people for hours ).
Again, it wasn't addressed by everyone, but just to put it in context, it was discussed with a lot of members and the overall consensus was in support of this move.