As others have pointed out, it wasn't running for 30 days.

As the guy who is allegedly in charge of the testnet, why didn't you tell anyone that there were some major uncertainties and very low participation... i.e. - that this hard fork was not ready for deployment?

Also, as a STINC employee, why do you not address the exclusion of witnesses from the private channels where there is more accessibility to information, testing, and discussion?

You ask why I didn't activate my witness on the testnet?

1. At #60 on the witness list, I have neither the financial incentive/support to robustly test the code nor do I have the influence to make a difference on hard fork acceptance.

2. I have been intentionally excluded and ignored by the dev team that creates and proposes the hard forks to be considered, so I have little motivation to help them with testing.

3. I had no plans to upgrade to version 0.20 anyway, unless it was already accepted by the top witnesses, which I cannot control. I do not approve of the hard forks that STINC has been proposing since last year, for the many reasons that I have already publicly stated.

The fact of the matter is - your guys screwed up the code, the top-20 witnesses didn't bother to test the code, and you went forward with deployment anyway, despite knowing about the negative RC balance problem. And you can't deny the fact that faulty code and unaccountable yes-men as top witnesses (who have the blessings of STINC, both publicly and privately) is a continual point of abject failure within our system.

So, if you have nothing else to add except more snark and deflection from the very real fact that the company you work for is vastly incompetent, then save it for someone who may actually give two shits about your poorly-crafted, preemptive damage control efforts.

And it's pretty ironic that this response had to come two days late.

Don't ya think?