Anything is possible however if you take a look at the original post here, you will see that the change to 4 weeks is only being considered for the upcoming hardfork because the code change is trivial and low risk:
To implement this change, all that would be needed is to change that number from 13 to 4. Therefore, this change could be implemented without significantly delaying the SMT hardfork ...
Of course it is possible to discuss any other sorts of changes such as configurable power down time, but not within the context of something that is feasible to deploy soon.
Yes, @steemitblog wrote it was easy to implement, but the reasoning for considering it is also that there was support for that idea within the community:
What I meant with "interesting idea" is the suggestion of @theycallmedan to burn a certain percentage of the STEEM always if anybody wants to initiate such a faster power down. So if one could fulfill the necessary security requirements (or if some people - I am not one of them - by their own choice optionally could accept a somewhat higher risk in exchange for a faster power down) that could be an interesting instrument to reduce the inflation of STEEM.
Thinking the idea to burn STEEM (whenever possible) is interesting doesn't mean I was supportiing the proposal for a shorter power down period (currentIy I am not).
Sorry, in case it wasn't clear I was answering the question in your last paragraph:
by pointing out that, yes, it is certainly possible, but not possible within the constraints set forth for the current hard fork. It would have to go into a future one, probably in six months to a year. For this one, the options under consideration are simply 4 weeks or 13 weeks.
Your other ideas (2FA, whitelists, etc.) are also very good ones which should be considered in the future.
I like the idea of white addresses to which I can get (this solves all security problems) speculators move the price in markets around the world, so we need them like air !!! 100%
I dont like the idea of a burn. I dont see any benefit for Steem to do that.
Burn means Steem is not a valuable resource, otherwise it would be a donation for instant powerdown to Steem DAO.
If you need to burn token the design of the token is bad.
One of the reasons for the high bitcoin price is its scarcity, whereas STEEM still has a rather high inflation. In my opinion burning some STEEM helps to curb the negative effect of inflation on the value of STEEM - at least for now.
dont get me wrong but with onboarding and more usecases we get the same effect in a more sexy way.
Steem is not Bitcoin.
If we remove current SBD from rewarding and make a Version like DAI out of it, we have the same effect beacause Steem get lockt up and less ( not control able) inflation.
And nice site effects like a real scalable 1$ pegged Coin on Steem.
I think things should be build for longterm and not for shortterm.
No problem, that you have a different point of view than me. I know what you mean, STEEM is not mainly (only) a value storage but also a fast and flexible blockchain with many possible use cases. Sure, there is a difference between STEEM and bitcoin, but for now we have no 'mass adoption', yet, just a crypto currency which is losing more and more of its value (which not only hurts current stake holders but also makes it less attractive for potential new investors).
I wrote "for now" I like the idea of burning STEEM, because I think that at least at the moment inflation, the fact that Steemit, Inc. is selling lots of STEEM and other reasons are causing an already long-lasting price decline pressure.