Interesting discussion. Looks like one worth bringing up tomorrow. Something here needs fixed.
We should be prepared for things like this in the future because it will not doubt require a worker payment proposal to get fixes such as these implemented. We should also ensure we have people paid "in house" to try to fix common issues like these...
This thread right here could take up an entire hangout i'm thinking.
For instance--what happens if people start having us pay them to integrate certain things, but intentionally provide backdoors that only a select few know about--thus affecting the network security? Or implementing changes that give them substantial benefits over others moving into the future? Naturally they would try to get paid for this as well, acting as though said changes only have one effect---a beneficial one.
So:
1) we should hire workers with the expectation that we might have to fire them
2) we should have workers who are trusted within the community who are here to fix issues if someone gets a worker proposal to change something, which turns out to have negative consequences---and rather than fixing it, they leave.
This is stuff our community should be considering. What happens if Bytemaster and the crew 3-4 years from now no longer have the desire to fix these problems due to any number of issues? Will it happen? Maybe not...maybe so. We should regardless begin thinking now about this type of stuff...or potentially suffer from some of the same issues we see Bitcoin suffering from today.
One thing is for sure--we have the basic infrastructure to solve these problems by consensus. Which is FAR improved from the current design of Bitcoin, where people like Gavin can make decisions themselves. This is one good thing about Bytemaster and the team starting to step away as the sole potential team of contributors who can work on and improve BitShares as a platform.
And we have no shortage of people who can help...and are trusted members of the community