It is against stakeholders best interest to roll back the chain on people who are unpopular or doing unpopular things.
Delegates can have all sorts of motivations or be coerced into having all sorts of motivations. I could easily imagine a scenario where 60% of stakeholders and over 80% of delegates preferred to implent changes that incorporated blacklisting to go mainstream , and you know for things like "think of the children!"
You think the same can't happen for Bitcoin if someone builds a farm big enough to control 51% ?
No , that's not how bitcoin works. A 51 % attack can only delay processing or fake 1-3 transactions before being stopped. Full Nodes or users control the direction of the protocol. What this means is Bitshares has 100 delegates and Bitcoin has 20k+ "delegates" with the possibility of quickly amassing millions of delegates(Bitcoin QT with port 8333 open = full node)
What this means is that if the 51% miners get co-opted by any nefarious agents or governments(apologize for repetition) than a hard fork would appear and Bitcoin would remain the same and a new coin would develop. Their vote is essentially picking the Bitcoin code implementation they preferred and by not acting or upgrading they would create the hard fork.
With bitcoin you need 100% consensus unlike DPoS. Breaking consensus means you have a hardfork. Every user has a vote, and if even one user disagrees he is fine to continue to keep bitcoin as they intend it but with a very small difficulty of course...
