Change Hardfork 17 to Get Some Things Passed?
Can we start off by implementing the least contested features now, and derive consensus on others later? How does that sound? Then we can keep things moving along with changes, rather than stagnate waiting for consensus to form on too many points with issues. Trying to get consensus on 1 issue is easier than 10 issues all at once, and getting consensus to move forward on 11 points that everyone agrees on is easier than thinking all 13 points need to be agreed upon together or else none of them can pass.
According to @pfunk's list from @liondani's post, we have the following about where the top 19 witnesses stand on these issues:
1- Remove Posting Rate Limit
- NONE AGAINST
2- The comment depth limit has been increased to 255.
- NONE AGAINST
3- Comments can now be permanently edited.
- NONE AGAINST
4- Comments are now paid out independent of their discussion.
- NONE AGAINST
5- All comments are paid out 7 days after creation and there is no longer a second payout window
5a- [proposed] Add meaningful abuse-mitigation to new 7-day window. Steem issue #900
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/900
6- There is now a comment reward fund separate from posts.
7- All payouts now look at the prior 30 days of payouts to determine the share of the reward rather than the current pending rshares
- NONE AGAINST
8- Reward Balance
- NONE AGAINST
9- Comment Reward Beneficiaries
- NONE AGAINST
10- Delegated Steem Power
- NONE AGAINST
11- Accounts can be created with a smaller fee and an initial Steem Power delegation.
- NONE AGAINST
12- PoW is being removed.
- ONE AGAINST
13- NTP is disabled by default
- NONE AGAINST
I submit that 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 can all be implemented, with needing to convince @liondani to accept no more PoW for #12.
Easy right? We move forward on 85% of the changes. And not move forward on two of them (5, 6).
Can't this be done instead?
What does everyone think?
Do we remove the 2 points of contention, and pass the rest, and see how that goes?
Do we scrap the whole HF17?
What's going on? LOL
Which fork in the road are we taking?
Source: flickr
Thank you for your time and attention! Take care. Peace.
Please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50:
If you are unsure how to vote for witnesses, you can put my name in the "SET PROXY" section at the bottom of the Witness Voting page which will use my witness votes.
2017-03-21, 12:40pm
We need to move forward. We can step backward if necessary. In the future they should do small hard forks, but more frequent. Change one thing unless you have other things that do not influence that change. Then whatever happens can be more definitively tied to that change good/bad.
When there is a lot it is hard to know and people will choose their own personal things they are biased against to blame bad things on, and the things they like to credit for good things.
Yet it will be very difficult to know if this is true.
Yet we do need to move forward.
Yeah, bad things need to be changed quicker ;), especially if it's a recent new change.
Very interesting and useful, thank you, resteemed.
I think you're taking the fork to the road towards decentralization, isn't it?
For me personally, that's indeed what I want. I didn't convey where I stand on any of the above issues, since I'm not a top 19 witness but I have expressed concerns in past posts which reviewed the changes. I don't like the comment reward pool. Months later, we still don't have a Comment tab for us to go find comments... because that's hard to make which would actually increase real engagement...
Don't know if we need a comment reward pool, my idea is to try to keep the interface simple and clear.
This makes perfect sense @krnel - may common sense prevail. If there are unanimous decisions on most, then implement those. I vote: DO IT (for what that's worth) ;P
Right on!
I think that there is also enough support for #5 if the dev team includes a fix for GitHub issue 900.
Exactly @krnel - this should be done
Indeed, seems pretty simple enough.
I voted for you and thanks for organizing all the changes this way. I was getting very confused.
Thanks, and glad to help bring some clarity. It should be pretty simple to just drop 2 things hehe.
I think people complicate issues when there is a lack of clarity because of very different views, it always happens in big groups anyway. I try and keep up on the technical and political issues here on Steemit and so I can have an informed opinion, again thanks for helping.
Yeah, you think?
Agreed! lets move on with those points that have consensus!
Upvoting the post AND the witness ;-)
Thanks ;)
I think it would be great to move forward with the noncontested issues. Constantly pushing back the date could have a negative influence.
Good points!