That's nonsense! Read again this paragraph from above: "I have talked to one of the large Hive investors and a core team developer and it was made clear to me that adding this change into a future HF would not be too difficult and if the proposal passes the return proposal and the AGAINST proposal in votes, it would be accepted as a change the community/investors want implemented".
I understand that if @blocktrades has a lot of stake, his vote should be bigger, but I'm just asking him why he sticks to the 13 unstaking period. That's something of the past, when we all were on St--mit, but things change and most of the community, myself included, is wondering why we should keep carrying this burden. The majority of tribes have taken the 4 weeks approach because it's better for everybody. Why should Hive be different?
I really would like to see the small accounts needed to vote on this proposal to be approved, but unfortunately I don't think this is going to happen.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
i don't know is it easy or difficult, but the code for HF is "freezed" two weeks ago and test net is running. and i seen some stupid code misses for hard forks when the chain was down for days. adding additional code would move the HF for more testing or maybe less testing. bug connected with funds is something i would not want to see.
i am not even sure that is the case, i think i read some post or heard in some talks that he has no strong opinion about 13 or 4 weeks powerdown, so this is my guess. and listening to hive development meetings i concluded he is not happy with adding new things after the testing is started. and i can understand that.
Ok, thanks for the info.