Dang, I'm trying to get my head around all these great ideas, and trying to monitor if there is any consensus forming. Many people have summarized there view, but it's hard to merge any of these summaries together to see how many people agree.
I guess I'm spoiled, because that is what we get at Canonizer.com. There are lots of good ideas being thrown out there, which lots of people seem to be agreeing with, and there is a lot of stuff that seems like trash to me, but I might just be not fully understanding what some are saying. If there was some measure of real consensus, so all the best ideas could rise to the top, so we could easily ignore all the bad ideas being thrown out there, like we get at Canonizer.com, that would sure help.
Wouldn't it be great to have a concise description and survey of all the best possible solutions being proposed in a consensus building way, and a quantitative measure of how many people thought each of the possibilities was important? How many people are there, really that are for absolutely no hard forks or no hard rollbacks, under any conditions? How many people think differently, how is this changing, over time, why?
It seems like a consensus is forming around a hard rule for never any roll backs. So let's say we formalized that, and all the delegates indicate they are 100% for that, and will never authorize a roll back.
Then as soon as the hard rule is formalized, some south African cartel kidnaps the ByteMaster and demands that half of all bit shares be sent to a certain address, within 12 hours, or they terminate him.
The bottom line is, dumb hard and fast rules are what bureaucracy is all about. If millions of -people can find a way to work, dynamically, instantly, in an amplified wisdom of the crowd, we can know 90% of the holders will buy into this action, in an instant, we will be able to face, intelligently adapt to, and out compete any threat, or any competitor.