@timcliff used to have objections for this notion and he always gave the reasons for why he thought it would not be a good idea.
Likewise, this could be a great opportunity to hear the objections and discuss them. Tim has always been open minded and open to discussion, no matter what the subject/topic is.
Tim, please jump in, this is too important for your voice not to be heard on this.
You know that I have been lobbying for this for over 2 years now, but now that it is possibly being put on the potential "To Do List", please jump in with any opposing views you had or maybe still have on the subject matter.
@jackmiller - Thanks for tagging me on this! It is indeed an important issue, and one that I've been quite passionate about :)
There are a lot of good discussion points about it in this old GitHub issue/thread:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/953
The idea being proposed in this post is not as unreasonable as many of the ones that have been brought up in the past. The six month period, as well as the proposed notifications and process to "renew/re-confirm" a vote make it palatable.
There are still some valid concerns about it, mainly on the security end:
There are trade-offs with every choice though, and given that it is proposing a six month renewal period - it is not something I would fight against.
Two other related ideas that I have brought up before and will mention again here for consideration are:
(1) A witness could have their votes removed if they have been inactive for a period of X days and N hardforks (for some large X, and N >= 1).
(2) A stakeholder's votes could be removed if they have not used their active/owner key in a period of N days (for some very large N).
These proposals attempt to deal more directly with inactive witnesses/abandoned accounts without trying to force a specific voting agenda on stakeholders.
I agree with this. I think expiring votes is a good idea, and 6 months+ does make it more palatable.
However, the 2 other proposed solutions are also interesting 🤔
1). This is a good idea in case witnesses go inactive
2). And this solution is good for stakeholders that go inactive.
I think maybe these things, combined with a longer overall expiry period could make for an interesting idea.
If solution 1 and 2 are both implemented, and then an overall re-vote in, say, 3 years or 5 even...it could help voters decide to look into their votes consciously again after a long period, yet keep their voting generally maintenance free during that period, aside from potentially serious problems.