I would call it "feature" as long as the developers of that blockchain put in place the tools to do it.
For instance, this "feature" has been more designed and elaborated in EOS.
So, from my side I don't see it's wrong to call it in that way.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's absolutely not a feature, IMO. It's an aspect of the technology. Sure, you can put in place tools to manage that aspect of the technology. But that doesn't make it a feature, it's still just an aspect of the technology, not something that was designed by choice, which was what CZ was implying. Now you could argue that tools to manage it are a feature, but that's a different point.
Well said!
Exactly, this is my point.
I agree that this is an aspect of the technology. But it is also true that when you design and write the code, if you put code to freeze accounts you are adding this as a plus, as something specific for that blockchain, you could summarize it as a feature.
I understand that freezing accounts could happen in all blockchains, not specific ones. But you could label those blockchains in that way when the majority of miners/producers/witnesses decide to apply a specific code to do it.
btw, I liked your article. Good to see the history behind the decision of DPoS.