And I, rightfully ignored it because you haven't the vaguest notion of what you attempt to speak about. I operate a pool, notSafecoin was on that pool, notSafecoin was mined by that pool, and the notSafecoin coinbase txs of that pool were signed by that pool. Do some homework. 

As for the rest....

OK, so I've reread what you wrote.
The assertion is the same as saying:

if a new coin (CoinX) came along and the majority of miners switched to that coin (thus "leaving the chain stuck"), then the "right" thing to do is not continue to run notSafecoin, but instead rewind the chain back to a time where the remaining miners could easily mine and CoinX has "damaged" notSafecoin.

I understand now.
The concept is to introduce mutability to make mining easy for anyone in the centralized cliche of a specific, yet random, 3rd-party social media platform that has nothing to do with the network protocol or protocol consensus. Thanks for setting me straight