@xiaobing convinced me that he/his boss was the owner of the account through the evidence that he presented. Once I reached that decision and given the fact that what he was asking was not technically infeasible (i.e. Dfinity, through @zire confirmed that this was not impossible), I felt that there was no choice but to vote my conscience. Therefore I voted yes.
I have read through the decision making process of the no votes. This are my three buckets of the no votes so far.
- No because you don’t believe the evidence that has been presented
- No because you think the exploration of evidence and counter arguments need more time
- No because you think this proposal should not have been brought into NNS proposal in the first place
I have found out some facts through this topic AFTER I voted. So I do think that in the future I would definitely demand more time on such issues. I have struggled with 3 quite a lot. The very existence of a mechanism to revert back a change (revert to the original mnemonic) is deeply concerning to me. As I have mentioned in the first paragraph, I submit that is not the issue before us in the current proposal.
I will present a detailed economic case separately of how the existence of such a mechanism could be exploited in the future ( I am NOT alleging that this was done in this case) for the benefit of a determined adversary playing by the exact same rules set up here. In a nutshell here, a variation of ability to transfer existing neurons (Threshold ECDSA Signatures - #111 by nomeata) temporarily could sway the vote-count in favor of a determined adversary for a specific proposal. While I am not aware about any current such buy-the-vote schemes, it is entirely possible in the future with appropriate systems in place as I will show.