Well in fact they do have the right to attempt to order anything that they would like to. That's free speech maximalism for you. Does not mean that it will happen but they can advocate for that if they would like to.
like every account on blurt except the accounts that have never been used, the property rights of the so-called founders fund or the so-called foundation or whatever the heck that thing is, must remain intact.
I suppose that the final point here is that we don't actually have a governance mechanism that can make those changes in a legitimate way. The real way to make those changes is to create a fork of blurt, or to do what blurt did to start, which is a snapshot and then an airdrop.
Otherwise, the only way to make those changes is to create a software upgrade that all of the witnesses run at a certain block height. I think we do not need 100% consensus. it might be 2/3 if I'm not mistaken.
I find your attitude most refreshing.
What changes are those?
Can you explain to me as a non-tech what is meant by snapshot and airdrop?
Megadrive was concerned about the chain being forced somehow to empty the foundation fund.
I think this concern was totally invalid.
In cosmos, it is possible (example Juno) to use governance to affect individual accounts. That's not possible on blurt.
Thank you.
You mean there was fear that someone could influence the witnesses to write code which would allow them to freeze someones account?
I think it's imaginable and therefor it's probably possible. But that would require a lot of criminal energy. And people hate being criminals from my point of view.
It is totally totally possible to either nuke or freeze accounts and to move funds arbitrarily between accounts. The key protection against this is the witnesses themselves. That's why it's really important that you choose good witnesses because those witnesses protect you against more or less endless and myriad threats.