You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What I Learned From Hardfork 20 - I Was Wrong about my Witness Votes
I can't believe how @ned and company could release an obviously untested fork onto the community for the witnesses to scramble to hash out. Good intentions on the surface, but bad management to throw something at the wall and hope it sticks, when it clearly wasn't debugged/tested/quality controlled enough to miss a massive error. If it was a tiny issue that slipped through the cracks, that happens. However, this was a crater of an issue.
Do all witnesses have to be tech/code gurus to effectively hold the role? In what is often a political or popularity contest, that's far too much responsibility to put on people who can be elected in without formal credentials.
I absolutely now think all witnesses need to be able to read and evaluate code and also to understand that is their primary job.
I absolutely know now that the potential for bad actors to slip in malicious code is real, a threat and could immediately wipe away whatever amount of stake I have in a platform. More importantly, as someone who wants to see cryptocurrency move forward, it will create unwanted regulation and hurt the entire movement if we support and engage in blockchains which are not owning their responsibility to police ourselves.