You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus
I agree with the decision to delay. But we could use some more diplomatic language here:
Due to the inability of witnesses to come to a consensus regarding Hardfork 17
Consensus is easier to reach if we have discussions with professional dialogues. Messaging is essential to the success of social platforms.
Agree. "Delay" would have been a better term here instead of the use of "Inability".
That just begs the question, why the delay? The answer is because of an inability to reach consensus. I don't see anything negative in that statement. If there is a perception of negativity then it is because people don't understand why the consensus mechanism exists in the first place. Not reaching consensus on occasion is part of how it works. I suppose you could say 'because consensus has not yet been reached' or something but saying there has been a delay doesn't communicate as much information and is therefore, in my opinion, an inferior way to state the facts.
I really don't think that the witnesses are so fragile they can't handle the word 'inability'. If there is no consensus then there has been an inability to do so. The only remaining question is how exactly are they going to move towards consensus?
The problem is not with the witnesses sensibilities. It is the problem of how the general market will perceive a failure to exicute a well publicized an needed update, multiplied by the fact that it is well known that there is currently much internal strife and discord with in the steemit operation. This failure to update is unfortunate and needs to be communicated to the market in the best light possible. Words have great influence in mass market phycology, something that all crypto (another bad term) projects live and die by and that few of them understand.
actually, the community needs straight up truth not spin bullshit.
Had the post stated a failure to reach consensus then there may be an issue as it implies fault on the witness side. Inability is just that, inability and it could come from both sides.
Maybe you need to be less nitpicky and more open to honest communication. Or does it offend your fragile sensibility?
We've had more than enough lack of communication. We need more communication and honesty.
The inability to communicate is what is causing most cryptos to remain a small unsuccessful market. Proper communication is not spin or bull shit. Your statement totally confirms what I am trying to communicate. The crypto space totally does not understand marketing or mass public communications.
By the way it is not a community. It is a market, and should be treated as such.
YOU may think it is a market.. those of us who contribute regularly see it as a community and it is US that is most effected by the changes in a hardfork. Your attitude that we are a market is what can and will kill what is being built. People are used as commodities on places like Reddit and Facebook, that is more of the disaster there.
Unable to reply to your last so will briefly reply here. Since the length of the chain has expired as guess it is just as well we cut this conversation as well. Just want to say that, I have contributed far, far, far more to this community than you will ever know.
I look at the messaging problems our social media competitors like Reddit and Facebook have had and I think we could avoid those by being more careful.
Not accepting a change by the majority is consensus.
I'm well aware of that. Apparently you need a more definitive statement. Since no one desires that the platform come to a halt, the desired consensus will be either acceptance of the HF or reaching agreement on what needs to be changed to attain consensus. So the question stands. Do you understand it now?
Yes, the question stands. The most simple way is asking who accept what, and do only those that are accepted, once at a time:
If they cannot answer, that's inability. If they weren't asked, that's not their fault. If Steemit, inc. couldn't ask those questions, that isn't witnesses' fault. The fault of witnesses could be only that if they accept/reject a HF without digging deep what the consequences would be.
The problem is that INC asks questions like:
Do you accept x,y,z?
Do you accept a,b,c?
There will be always something in the package that will be unacceptable for someone.
I don't know why they try to reach consensus out of the blockchain. It's built-in.
Make a change, ask witnesses for HF. If they do, that's yes, if they not, that's no. Simple. Make a poll on the blockchain before new modifications, so devs won't waste their precious time making non-used code. When they get a no, put the code sideline, since witnesses changes, sometimes very quickly, and the answer could be yes next time.
That's my answer for your question.
Well, thank you for your effort but was looking for a more real answer from those involved.