I disagree on how you are using the word micromanagement here. Managed yes micro'd no.
It's nothing more than adding another safeguard to preserve the currency.
Mechanisms to deal with large hashers that approach 51% are already in place. When an entity reaches that point and they are deemed to not be trustworthy, that will cause the value to decrease. When the value decreases then they no longer have an incentive to have that much hash power running and will stop.
Modifying the way Bitcoin works to prevent someone, you don't like, from reaching a certain percentage is what I would call micromanagement. Once the precedent is set who is to say what that magic percentage that no one entity should be allowed to reach. 51% isn't the number that double spends are possible, that can be done with a much smaller percentage.
I say bullshit. The value didn't decreased before when it happened before. The pool operator took actions. Which they didn't have to do.
w/e You'll disagree to disagree.
