I'm no blockchain historian, but this is the impression I get... I don't want to force anyone into taking a public stance that might put them at risk, but this is a real concern as far as I can tell.
They only did it when the hack occurred and when they had a fix for the solution. I think they wanted to be seen as pro-active in handling a situation as opposed to waiting on witnesses to update.
the point here is: right now, with the whole software still in beta and very new, it might actually be a good thing that there is still some control from one or few individuals over the system. this makes it possible to react quickly to critical situations.
I'm no blockchain historian, but this is the impression I get... I don't want to force anyone into taking a public stance that might put them at risk, but this is a real concern as far as I can tell.
They only did it when the hack occurred and when they had a fix for the solution. I think they wanted to be seen as pro-active in handling a situation as opposed to waiting on witnesses to update.
the point here is: right now, with the whole software still in beta and very new, it might actually be a good thing that there is still some control from one or few individuals over the system. this makes it possible to react quickly to critical situations.