Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus

2 months ago
69 in hardfork-17

Due to the inability of witnesses to come to a consensus regarding Hardfork 17 this update to the Steem blockchain will be delayed until such consensus can be reached.

We have a vision for Steem and that vision includes consensus.


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
Join our amazing community to comment and reward others.
Sort Order:  trending
71
  ·  2 months ago

Thank you. Keep listening to the community, and we will do well. If we've learned anything from this, it's that people prefer smaller changes more often. Hopefully, exchanges won't run into problems if we hardfork too often but throwing everything into one major change seems too much like injecting some pork belly project into a popular bill without a line-item veto option. Keeping changes small and modular makes a lot of sense. That said, it's unfortunate efforts will now be spent to revert work already done and/or figure out workarounds moving forward. Clear communication about proposed changes prior to the actual work being done may help avoid wasted efforts in the future.

Please let the team know we value them and their efforts. Please, don't lose the vision for Steem we fell in love with.

·
71
  ·  2 months ago

good idea.
break the hardfork up into subcomponents...
do (or not) each one separately.

68
  ·  2 months ago

Needs two simple changes to reach consensus -

  • Eliminate the separate comment reward pool.
  • Add anti-abuse mechanism to 7-day payout.

Source: https://steemit.com/steem/@liondani/transparency-witnesses-opinions-on-hard-fork-17-futures

It would seem like the obvious thing to do - make these changes, let Hardfork 17 pass on 28th March, then work on convincing witnesses why the comment reward pool is a good idea for Hardfork 18. Hardfork 17 has been delayed far too long, we need to get moving.

·
72
  ·  2 months ago

Good comment though I disagree with this:

then work on convincing witnesses why the comment reward pool is a good idea for Hardfork 18.

The reward curve super-linearity needs to be reduced first. This is a change that is wanted by a lot of users, stakeholders, and witnesses (I almost regret not polling about it, but we were trying to keep it focused on what is at hand rather than a future update). However, its implementation might have been premature because there was so much else going on, and it was pulled from this hard fork release.

Reward curve first, see results, and only then talk about a separate comment pool again. Even if a flatter reward curve doesn't materialize the hoped-for comment rewards, a separate comment pool comes with its own issues and baggage.

I want to see a more focused, less "omnibus" approach to major changes being made to Steem for the future, so that the potential positive and negative consequences of any change can be discussed and explored in-depth.

Edit: I have made a post about why the Steem reward pool is better left whole: https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole

·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

I agree @liberosist in the sense that is how the process should ideally work, in particular, "then work on convincing". Perhaps that attempt would be successful, maybe not, but that is the healthier process rather than trying to porkbarrel it in or pressure people into it.

·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

Sure, I agree with you about reward curve first. I feel the next hardfork could just be the reward curve and bug fixes etc. rolled out in April rather than wait till June and bundle other features. A quarterly cadence makes sense for a more stable product, but the reward curve change seems urgent in getting to a MVP.

In my comment above I was merely making suggestions from the developers' perspective. They obviously believe in the comment rewards pool, so let them bring forth their argument. The community could then counter argue that the reward curve fix may solve both issues etc.

·
64
  ·  2 months ago

I agree, those 2 features are the ones preventing consensus to be reached.
I say take them off HF17 so we can discuss them further, all the other changes are good and non controversial.

EDIT: Actually I'm not sold on SP delegation either.

SP delegation will allow large stake holders to completely bypass the current experiment as they will be able to easily delegate power to themselves and use all their voting power. Users have a lot more power now, even minnows can make a small difference so I don't see the point of this feature.
We need something like an investor class to incentivize large stake holder to not vote.

More on investor class https://steemit.com/hardfork-17/@steemitblog/patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus#@snowflake/re-freebornangel-re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-freebornangel-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t224904820z

·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

If there is a major problem with 'bypassing' then bots can be told to aggregate all delagated stake votes. Since the delgation is on-chain it is visible. Actually moving the stake to smaller accounts is a bigger potential problem. I agree as you know that better investor-class incentives are needed.

·
71
  ·  2 months ago

That's a great suggestion. Makes a lot of sense.

72
  ·  2 months ago

the thing i dont like the most is 7 days payment.

1st payment should be as 24 hours like now just without comment votes extending it (now with 1 big comment vote every 24h we can keep old post trending forever)

second payment can be 7 days instead of 30

·
64
  ·  2 months ago

I do not agree to remove the limit of 4 posts a day. The quality in this way will lower and you risk becoming like Rabataba .... To have the votes gets in everything. Better to leave the limit .... and focus on quality!

·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

4 posts per day rule makes many use cases ineffective, like Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, etc.

·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

The community can deal with this one by not upvoting users who post low quality content. If someone can crank out 10 posts a day that are all high quality, then more power to them :)

·
·
·
59
  ·  2 months ago

One word: "bots".

The auto-voters will cast votes on authors as fast as they crank 'em out. Of course, the community can take counter-measures to keep the most prolific abusers from hogging all of the reward-pool, but it'll come at the cost of re-awakening the whole flagging/ policing issue and could get ugly if many of the higher rep accounts (accounts with the most followers; hence, most auto-voters) choose to take advantage.

·
·
·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

Most people with auto-upvote bots have them set to people that they have determined will get a lot of votes. A lot of times even today with the 4 post limit - if people on the lists start posting a lot of posts, they will get removed from the auto-bot lists, because they aren't earning the owner enough curation rewards. I don't think it will be as big of a problem as people think it is.

·
·
·
·
·
66
  ·  2 months ago

I won the whale vote contest - watch out! Good things coming!

·
·
·
63
  ·  2 months ago

The community can deal with this one by not upvoting users who post low quality content.

Or even, dare I say it, flagging

·
67
  ·  2 months ago

I say make it 5 - 7 days, similar to how it extrends from 24 - 24+ hours now, so that last minute votes extend the period as they do now. The 30 day payout is too long and I see 7 days as a nice compromise to make it one payout only - there is no point to the 2 payouts.

·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

Agreed regarding a single payout window. Removing the 2 payouts was one of the key reasons for the change. It simplifies the blockchain logic. It is also less to learn for new users.

There are various proposals in steem GitHub issue 900 to deal with the window extension. One idea is to have it be a fixed 7 day time, but on the last day - slowly taper off the amount of change that a vote can do, until at the end of the day it reaches 0.

·
65
  ·  2 months ago

first payment at 7 days seems rather long. I don't disagree with extending the first one but 48 hours would likely be plenty.

·
68
  ·  2 months ago

No we can't, the extension is stake weighted. A vote needs to be as high as all the ones before combined to extend it another full 24 hours.

·
·
72
  ·  2 months ago

are you sure if you upvote with YOUR 100% power comment every 24h on lets say my post, it wont stay trending for days? ive seen abit doing this, i dont have enoug hpower i can extend posts payout times by few hours myself

·
·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

It all depends on the votes that were cast before. I you vote on a 0 votes post you extend it by 24 hours.

61
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
56
  ·  2 months ago

Agree. "Delay" would have been a better term here instead of the use of "Inability".

·
·
46
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
65
  ·  2 months ago

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?

·
·
56
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
·
65
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
·
·
56
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
·
·
56
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

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.

·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

Not accepting a change by the majority is consensus.

·
·
·
65
  ·  2 months ago

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?

·
·
·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

Yes, the question stands. The most simple way is asking who accept what, and do only those that are accepted, once at a time:

  • Do you accept x?
  • Do you accept y?
  • Do you accept z?

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.

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  2 months ago

Well, thank you for your effort but was looking for a more real answer from those involved.

65
  ·  2 months ago

To add flattening the curve?!?

·
64
  ·  2 months ago

I like your style!

60
  ·  2 months ago

Is it an option for the developers to divide the changes in smaller chunks in order to be able to convince more witnesses?

·
64
  ·  2 months ago

Everyone wants a closer-to-linear reward curve. There are also some uncontroversial features in HF 17. We should proceed with those.

·
·
62
  ·  2 months ago

yes reward curve is the most important imho

·
·
60
  ·  2 months ago

Indeed. Once the less controversial features are out of the way, there will be plenty of time to discuss the really tough ones.

·
71
  ·  2 months ago

There were concerns about several of the changes in the hardfork. The witnesses are planning to continue discussions with Steemit on the best path forward, with the goal of reaching consensus on a set of changes that are right for the community.

·
·
74
  ·  2 months ago

if there were fewer things included, it would have a better chance of passing.....

·
·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

We're all continuing to discuss. That's one option :)

·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

Where are those discussions? Github?

·
·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

The discussions are spread out over a lot of different channels. This post, as well as a few of the other ones about the HF are collecting input from the people in the community. GitHub has a lot of discussion as well. Some of the witnesses have expressed their views directly to Steemit. You are welcome to email Sneak (sneak at steemit.com) if you have anything you want to get to them directly - but they are already hearing from a lot of people, so no need to repeat stuff if it's already been said by other people before.

·
·
·
61
  ·  2 months ago

I really like what you do on the information front, @timcliff. It should be default, intended by all of the actors that all information about Steem could be found at the same place, or at least use the miraculous invention, called hyperlink to point all specific information from one hub.

It requires much work to collect the info and that closes out everyone from the well thought decision.

Voters may think "witnesses know everything better, I just chose some randomly". That's not that true. I found that I was more prepared in some questions than some witnesses, and I know nothing.

Code is the documentation.

I cannot code and so many others. After reading the SWP, my only source of knowledge is accidentally and luckily read some comments from @smooth and @abit, your articles, and reading the chat (sometimes not so) quetly in the witness channel until someone will say me 'GTFO, peasant'.

This open world is f*ing closed.

Steem should be in a comic (OK, I know @mynameisbrian accepted this challenge many times :) ). The whole platform is about sharing information, yet I feel the lack of them every time, in every question, at everyone. Users have big question marks over their heads, or worse, they start to attack and mislead others confidently based on false information or lack of them.

·
69
  ·  2 months ago

There must be less controversial features that few would object to, but would enhance Steemit. We need the platform to keep moving forward

·
·
60
  ·  2 months ago

That's exactly my point. If the hardfork is divided into several chunks with each containing only a small subset of, less controversial, features it would be much easier for the witnesses to reach consensus.

·
63
  ·  2 months ago

+1 this

·
59
  ·  2 months ago

Good idea. Piece meal it.

68
  ·  2 months ago

very nice post @steemitblog
steemit hopefully continue to thrive all time

64
  ·  2 months ago

Ya'll said that like it was us and them.
At this point community outrage has made it's self known.
Better to talk in terms of us, and not as a separateness from us, imo.
Decrees don't fly in a consensus environment, thankfully.

I can tell you that I have chosen Steemit over busy on customer service grounds, I would just as quick pick minds over this place, if they had steem, also because of customer service issues.

Somebody is going to have to manage community relations, probably best to crowd source that, but it will be up to Steemit to build the structure that facilitates efficient community polling.

I'd like to see cheetah and steemcleaners supported by Steemit.
@anyx has expressed his disillusionment with the project, and it is very important in the ecosystem, imo.
Either incorporate it, or make a deal with anyx to secure their continuation?

SP delegation has already been decried in the guild fiascoes, let's not try to make that institutional?
Banding together for power is bad when the republicrats do it, let's not do it here, huh?
If you need to farm out your voting, use @steemvoter just like a regular user.

I don't like changing the payout window, but only on default grounds, this is better than that, but neither is optimal due to blockchain issues, ie, no square roots, bias against changing old blocks, etc,...

Thanks to @smooth and @abit we can put the n2 on the back burner, though I would like to see numbers on the proliferation of sock puppet dolphins equating to nearly the same situation.
Allowing the low sp accounts to matter in the math has excited the user base like nothing else I have seen, up to this point.

Thanks for your time and attention,....

·
68
  ·  2 months ago

SP delegation has already been decried in the guild fiascoes, let's not try to make that institutional?
Banding together for power is bad when the republicrats do it, let's not do it here, huh?
If you need to farm out your voting, use @steemvoter just like a regular user.

How is delegating Steem Power to 100 curators, or a guild with 100 curators, more "banding for power" than a single whale voting with it? Seems to me like concentrating all the Steem Power towards one whale is more centralisation of power than distributing it among 100 others.

·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

@liberosist The problem I see with SP delegation is that it will allow large stake holders to completely bypass the current experiment as they will be able to easily delegate power to themselves and use all their voting power.
We need something like an investor class to incentivize them not to vote.

·
·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

Give them an author incentive and let them post just like everybody else.
More sp, higher multiplier on the votes that do come in.
If the community refuses to vote them it will be their own fault.
Likely the community will worship them and they will make much more posting than they could curating.
It's just a matter of structuring the hodl sp curve to keep them invested.
It also gives the little guy incentive to power up for more author and curation rewards.
Imo.

·
·
·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

I think the best would be to allocate say 25 % of the inflation to all account above say 250 - 500 Mv that are not voting.
allocate 15% for curation rewards ( 15% will actually be a lot more rewards for minnows/dolphins) because large stake holders won't receive any)
and 60% for authors reward.

And if the incentive is not good enough we could increase it to 35% investors class and 50% authors reward.

I made a similar proposal here https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/steem-inflation-a-tool-to-create-demand

here is also an interesting post about it https://steemit.com/steem/@nanzo-scoop/let-s-talk-investors-the-fly-on-the-wall-of-the-padded-cell-of-steemit

I’m not sure whether an exclusive share of the existing SP interest will be enticing enough. If it isn’t I’d also consider reducing the author/ curation reward for 75% to 50% in order to fund additional interest for SP over 250MV.
To my mind, there is no point in authors/ curators getting 75% of the pie, if the pie is constantly depleting because no investor is willing to get involved and buy STEEM.

The investors class thing is perfect to align incentives with everyone and create a balanced ecosystem.

·
·
·
·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

Give me a day or two to grok your proposal, on the surface I don't like separating into separate groups, users should be users, imo.
But I need some time to read your proposal without interruption, and that can't be now,....

·
·
·
·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

Replied, here: https://steemit.com/m2c/@freebornangel/how-you-liking-this-new-paradigm

I think, no.
I listed reasons why in the post.

·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

The power is centralized by the existence of the whale, what are the odds that I get some of that whale love?

The whale can try to clean it up, perhaps by spreading the love, but is that love going to be extended to @skeptic?

If your viewpoint is too intrinsically linked to the power, it makes it harder to view the power objectively.

If @abit and @smooth have proven any one thing, it is that less whale influence equals more influence for everybody else.

That being said, I am not trying to disenfranchise the whales, just asking them to allow us to get big enough to feed them fully before they ultimately feed on us.

Guilds, and delegation of sp, is the power trying to sink a harpoon in us to ride us as best that they can.
It's good crapitalism, but the everyday user won't be happy when the truth becomes obvious, imo.

·
·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

I'm afraid I don't understand. To me, it seems obvious that spreading out a whale's influence among many curators is inherently more decentralized and efficient. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

PS: It's not just abit and smooth, there are dozens of whales and curation guilds participating in the experiment.

·
·
·
·
64
  ·  2 months ago

I think @abit and @smooth took the hit publicly, but that may just be my perspective on it.

Why do we need whale welfare, why don't we start with a level field for everybody?
If you can earn it, it is your's.
If a whale loans it to you, you have been given a hand up that disadvantages all who don't get the boost.

The whales are a necessary component of the game, if they did not exist somebody would do a hostile take over just to troll us, but that is where their influence on the platform should end.

No special rules for the rich, nor their trained seals and/or sock puppets, thank you very much.

71
  ·  2 months ago

Oh no. I was literally dying for the nesting limit to be removed. Literally.

Now you have consigned me to death

·
70
  ·  2 months ago

@meesterboom don't worry I'll bring roses when they bury you - lol

·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

As long as you don't bring more than six ;0)

·
·
·
70
  ·  2 months ago

@meesterboom why? 7 is a lucky number hahahah
its so not related to this post
am sorry :D
I'll try to revive you first :D

·
·
·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

6 After the nesting limit!! Hahah!

I look forward to the reviving :O)

·
69
  ·  2 months ago

LOL! :)

·
58
  ·  2 months ago

It hurts for sure... Commenting and keeping the conversation going ON the platform should be incentivized as much as possible. Minimizing nested comments at some point would be helpful though, or one conversation could bury the rest.

Oh yes... and do you mind sharing a coffin? ; )

·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

That is definitely something that is needed with the removal of the nesting limit. Some kind of collapsing the comments above a certain number. For example 6! To avoid one giant convo dominating them all. Yes very good point.

Lol, coffin sharing commencing!!!

71
  ·  2 months ago

I salute this decision. Looks like being a witness and having your say starts to matter. I'm still keeping an eye on this project and I will encourage every move towards meaningful contribution and improved communication.

69
  ·  2 months ago

Good decision...

The general consensus is to postpone Hardfork 17...

69
  ·  2 months ago

69
  ·  2 months ago

I have an unanswered question, please:

When HF17 was originally announced, it was stated that POSTS could be edited permanently rather than only for a month.... I seriously hope that has not changed? Could someone knowledgeable please comment?

I'm asking because I've recently seen multiple summary articles about HF17 mentioning only comments as being editable...

I would really appreciate an answer on this, Thanks in advance.

😄😇😄

@creatr

·
65
  ·  2 months ago

don't think we're going to know that or much of anything until consensus is reached @creatr

·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

OK, thanks. I'm strongly in favor of being able to edit articles in perpetuity. The history remains on the blockchain for anyone interested, but corrections, updates, and additions may continue to be made.

I appreciate your response, Thank You. ;)

·
·
·
65
  ·  2 months ago

Can't say that I disagree with that concept since the search engines will continue to find the article ... so changes can be a plus.

·
·
·
·
66
  ·  2 months ago

I won the whale vote contest - watch out! Good things coming!

·
·
·
70
  ·  2 months ago

@creatr word on

being able to edit articles in perpetuity

·
71
  ·  2 months ago

There are two parts to this:

  1. In the technical documents, a post is just a root level comment. The change that was in the proposed HF applied to both.
  2. As of now, there are no decisions as to what changes will be included in the next proposed HF. I did not see a lot of controversy around this one, so it is likely to be there, but there are no guarantees.
·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

Thank you very much, @timcliff, for the more detailed insight!

·
·
·
71
  ·  2 months ago

Welcome :)

·
68
  ·  2 months ago

Posts can be edited indefinitely in HF17. The announcement using the word 'comment' was unclear.

·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

Hooray!

Thanks very much for the clarification, this is excellent news. ;)

·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

Hello @smooth,

Now that HF17 and HF18 are "here," is there some magic to editing my older posts? I've gone back to the one I most wish to edit, and see no "Edit" button anywhere... :O

Any light you might be able to shed on how I can edit an old post would be most appreciated! ;) Thank you in advance.

·
·
·
68
  ·  2 months ago

I'm told there is still needs to be another UI update to support that. Hopefully it won't take too long.

·
·
·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

Thank you kindly for the insight. ;)

59
  ·  2 months ago

If the reward curve becomes linear then what's the point of holding large steem power? Can someone explain?

·
69
  ·  2 months ago

You would have linearly more reward power instead of geometrically and when the price of steem jumps back to $1.00 because a crapton more people choose to hold any at all, you'll benefit from the price increase .

What's the point of holding massive SP right now? The pool is constantly shrinking at least in part because people come here and feel disheartened when they see the HUGE cliff they have to climb for their vote to mean anything at all.

Look at what happened when Dan left and the @abit started the experiment. The fact is "knowing my vote matters" makes me want to buy more but I don't have exponentially more money, so it feels good to know that even a linear amount helps a lot.

There is no benefit at all in massive centralized holding of SP. All it means is that the distribution is mimicking the real world where we have 1%'rs who get to dictate the financial system to the rest of us chumps.

·
·
59
  ·  2 months ago

Thanks I get it now but I still have a question. Won't it be easy to game the system by having many accounts?

·
·
·
69
  ·  2 months ago

No you still have the cost to acquire steem power as a significant factor.

Having many accounts doesn't change this cost consideration and still provides a dilution effect, but perhaps not as extreme as the exponentiation or whatever they're calling it going on now. Furthermore, you'll get far more benefit with the "Proxy or delegate SP", than by having multiple accounts, so the incentive to do that goes away.

·
·
·
·
59
  ·  2 months ago

Okay, thanks for the info! Steem on!

66
  ·  2 months ago

I don't mind to wait for a greater good.
Keep up the good work.

70
  ·  2 months ago

Steemit.inc's efforts are hugely appreciated. I am very happy about this, I hope with some adjustments, HF17 can move forward with strong consensus among witnesses. Hard forks need to become routine, despite the challenges that presents.

57
  ·  2 months ago

Looking forward to the next update, when it becomes agreed upon. :]

58
  ·  2 months ago

Yeah.. I hope the best thing happpen for us. Nicev!

46
  ·  2 months ago

great resteem!

65
  ·  2 months ago

Consensus is a very good thing. I think slow and steady progress that is agreed on is best. I don't mind waiting - amazing progress has been made so far.

64
  ·  2 months ago

Is a list available of topics where consensus is not reached? I'm very interested to know.

58
  ·  2 months ago

Great now this gives you guys time to fix the phone sign up that is broken. Since i have joined i have seen 15 people who couldn't join because its just straight up broken.

62
  ·  2 months ago

too bad. But that is what a blockchain is all about.

thank you for the communication. I would like to hear more and more frequently from the steemit team.

70
  ·  2 months ago

Slow and steady is better than rushing. Steemit will reach its goal and nothing can stop it.

Great to hear you stick to your roots

72
  ·  2 months ago

Bravo. I am all for experimentation, but I am glad you are seeking consensus.

49
  ·  2 months ago

Hello ! What does it mean when a payout is declined ? I see this post with a potential payout of $ 23.51 that has been declined and am wondering what that means ? Thank you for your feedback. Best regards.

·
71
  ·  2 months ago

It means that the poster is choosing to decline the rewards. They will not receive payout from the post, and the rewards will stay in the "rewards pool" to be paid out to all the other active posts. The UI will still show how much the post would have made though, with a line through it indicating the payout was declined.

·
·
49
  ·  2 months ago

What is the "reward pool" ? Who benefits from it ? The ones that upvotes, resteemed of something else ? Thank you very much for your time and explanation.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
49
  ·  2 months ago

Thank you very much. I understand it better now :)

·
68
  ·  2 months ago

@steemitblog will not receive a reward for this post, and there's no curation rewards for it.

74
  ·  2 months ago

surprised!

71
  ·  2 months ago

Does Steem have the same broken governance of Bitcoin?

63
  ·  2 months ago

I really appreciate all of the hard work that everybody who is working on hardfork 17 is putting in. I know that it can be very stressful for everybody involved especially when trying to reach a consensus.

I know that it would be easier to push through with fewer changes. Although, I think a number of changes that are trying to be made is a good thing. We don't want to have to many changes on a constant basis as it may be hard for newer users to grasp what is going on when things are changing to often. Either way thank you again for working hard!

61
  ·  2 months ago

How about instapay ongoing forever, someone upvotes boom 1 cent in your wallet, any flags can nullify future upvotes.

67
  ·  2 months ago

Appreciate the update... does seem like there should be a way to move forward with the items that were NOT "controversial" (or that most witnesses had no significant issues with) and hold off on the items requiring further discussion and changes... make a "17.1" a month down the road... not sure the "all or nothing" approach serves the community best.