First ever bugs-free software in the world was not our goal. The "good enough and no known bugs" was. Testnet was running fine but mainnet is another beast - it's 40x times larger and it turned out that some things were not robust enough.
As for enf: the choice is a) some MNs have longer period of payouts b) network forks unexpectedly. What's the point of using sporks if you would achieve the same result (fork)? We prefer to fix all discovered issues, let network stabilize and then enforce the rules. Thanks to miners (who understand that long-term profit is much more important than a sort-term one) 95% of MNs are being paid correctly.
If you prefer unpredictable forking, then clearly you are not.... And the keyword you used is "we" - clearly I'm not your "we" ...
I think you are wrong. Having sporks control is indeed a point of centralization but it gives no direct control over miners or masternodes. If it would, we wouldn't ask and wait for them to upgrade. "unwilling", yeah, right... Implement decentralized version of spork if you think it's that easy and we'll merge it.... I think you meant to say "we, The New Geek Bankers"... a minority unwilling to hand over control to the majority... what with all those centralized sporks ...
If you prefer unpredictable forking, then clearly you are not.
I think you are wrong. Having sporks control is indeed a point of centralization but it gives no direct control over miners or masternodes. If it would, we wouldn't ask and wait for them to upgrade. "unwilling", yeah, right... Implement decentralized version of spork if you think it's that easy and we'll merge it.
Sporks is not a bad idea.
The flaw with sporks is the way they are ignited.
The sporks should be ignited by the vote of the masternodes, and not by a single developer or by the core team.