When the ledger and associated funds could be compromised by potentials like double spending or printing out of thin air, I do think one of the best and most reasonable responses is a temporary network stoppage that does not require the complex ethical consideration that undoing, forking out, or changing transactions would require on top of important code/patching work.

>Can you imagine any other system going down that processes monetary value for a few hours retaining its userbase?

https://media.giphy.com/media/APJ8aylgEPfzy/giphy.gif


Its called lunch hour at my bank...

Really?  Banks and credit card companies experience security vulnerabilities frequently.  The difference is if you have your keys here then just relax and steem on.

Actually yes, this happened twice this year at my bank, operation were halted for 48 hours the first time and 6 hours the second time. The whole bloody bank stopped working for 2 days while IT people were scrambling to find and correct the problem. And still the bank retained the userbase bevause peopel are lazy and the bank compensates people who can substantiate claims that they had losses (because they couldn't buy or sell a financial instrument or repay a debt that was due,  etc.)

Bitcoin experienced a similar incident early in its life and the community and block producer response was similar to the response to this incident. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

There have been comparable incidents on other proof of work blockchain networks.

Whether your argument is for Bitcoin maximalism or the superiority of proof of work over proof of stake or proof of delegated stake (what Steem uses), neither is well supported by your inference of a spotless history for them.

delete

I don’t know if it is accurate to say that this was an issue related to the DPOS algorithm. Also, the practice of stopping operations if an unexpected scenario is triggered is pretty standard - afaik all of the major crypto currency exchanges have similar mechanisms in place z