Maybe we could vote in the client itself.
XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.
What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it
Why to vote?
I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").
Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?
And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?
What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....
The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:
1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL
Well, that sounds unlikely, but if it would happen, it could lead to a lot of trouble, not only for the person affected, but also for the person he_she is suing, which would be who exactly? The person who published the code, the one who wrote it? I'm not sure, whether that person could point towards an online vote and say "I just followed orders".
With that in mind, I think deciding on this in a democratic way holds the risk, that there wouldn't be a risk for those voting, but there could be a risk for a person or a small group of persons who execute the vote.
I'm no legal expert, so what I described has to be taken with a grain of salt, but if we assume, that in the end, the responsibility lies by only some people, as opposed to lying by the XEL community as a whole, those people should be the ones deciding.
I'd say, don't change it, and create some kind of repeal form. People can check their donation BEFORE distribution, if something is wrong, they can contact you, Lannister or someone else to fix it.
