AskSteemit: What change would you like to see happen on Steem on the technical level?
After reading @tarazkp's recent post about another solution to our content discovery and rewarding problem I figured now before SMT's come into play would be a great time for us all to consider how the platform works and what we as a community with the help of witnesses could change for the better.
I know it all seems a bit powerless right now but with a solid plan and knowing what exactly we should change we can make an effective change that would benefit us all. I'm sure there will always be abusers in any system but the point would be to minimize their effect as much as possible. I really liked the solution @tarazkp highlighted and I hope to see people act on it and for witnesses to come forward with a consensus on what they think about it and why or why not it should be implemented.
Anyway, while we may have this chance to change things up and in regards with the upcoming SMT features I wanted to ask the question:
What would you change about the current system and why?
There are so many. Smart contracts, quantum safe identity, ephemeral active wallets... but you asked for one, so.... more granular authorisation capabilities at consensus layer.
Today, with my private posting key you can:
Bare consensus rules should allow me to let you vote, but not post. They should allow me to let you post, but not vote or unfollow my followers. I understand there are technical trade-offs here but there are some that I think are worth it.
There is the WISE project which is working on a really neat privatised implementation of granular permissions, but it requires either running a "server" with your key to listen for requests, which are accepted or refused according to rules you specify, or trusting someone to run one for you. This is sub-optimal for ordinary users as it requires either trust or tech-savviness. In general I think we should work to make consensus as feature-complete as possible, and minimise the need for centralised trust.
Can you please explain this?
Bare consensus rules should allow me to let you vote, but not post. They should allow me to let you post, but not vote or unfollow my followers.🤔
Posted using Partiko Android
I will give it a shot. Right now there are three types of permissions recognised by the blockchain:
Posting authority, for example, is what you give to apps like Partiko so that they can do things you asked them to do. However, the way things work right now, there is no way to give an app the power to vote without also giving the power to post as well, or vice versa.
When one popular community was hacked earlier this year, the posting authorities held for those users meant that the hackers were able to make upvotes from all the users' accounts. If we could give apps the right to post for us without giving them the right to vote, we could dampen the impact of another such incident.
Other new, exciting possibilities would open up as well; a new "market" authority for example, with the ability to make bids on the internal market but not to move funds, could power a mobile trading app.
Much appreciated! Yes , I was not aware of the reason why that incident happened and you come up with a good idea. 🙌
Posted using Partiko Android
The idea behind Taraz's scared me at first, but it's grown on me a lot and I'm now wondering exactly where the downside is, and for who?
Locked stake in a bid-bot still has to be paid for by the content creator, so why not provide something else which also doesn't 'disorganize' content according to the wisdom of the crowd.
Oh yes, and an MCT - Manual Curation Token, just for you (and Taraz, BT, v4v, and a few others :P )
I like the MCT idea!!
Manual curators are more likely to have read the post but are late for good curation rewards - let's give them a token of appreciation :)
Great idea I have not considered!
amen!
Hehe I like the sound of MCT. :D
Yeah I've been thinking about how this can be abused, I don't see many ways. Even if certain "guilds" or whatever you want to call them prefer posting it will always cost them a certain percentage for their content creators, I'm guessing they might give up on that and just get 100% for doing nothing instead.
We already have the "bones" of an internal exchange/market. How about extending that so Steem-based SMTs could be traded against each other without having to go to an "external" exchange.
Might encourage more retention within the ecosystem, AND help prevent "bleedout" because a lot of people WILL be looking to turn their tokens into cash.
I am pretty sure SMT's are meant to be added to the inner market!
That's in the SMT whitepaper.
Regarding the market or exchange for Steem-based tokens, the eSteem presented a future project for this particular purpose, eSteemX. If the internal market will lack that feature, I suppose eSteem team will be the closest exchange on the blockchain. https://steempeak.com/esteem/@good-karma/esteem-presentation-at-steemfest3-f88a6a357ef4dest
Right now I wouldn't change anything, I want to wait till SMTs come around and see how the whole ecosystem reacts and evolves before doing any massive changes, if anything, I would remove the 15 minute curation window.
After SMTs are developed and we manage to measure their impact we can talk about increased curation rewards and alternate downvote bars :^)
I'd lower it to something like 5 else bots would gain most of the curation rewards by voting instantly.
For comments it would be better to be lowered to like 30 seconds or something though, feels kinda dumb that voting on comments gets penalized now.
Have the 'page views' prompt be put back on our blog
1 is about condenser which I doubt will happen much on any time soon, you might be better off using steempeak or asking them to create a multi-tag feature.
2 can already be done and was implemented onto condenser recently
3 is also about condenser :D
good points but I was wondering about Steem the blockchain.
Hey! Nice presentation at SF btw! Keep up the good work @steempeak! :)
The changes that have been proposed recently have scared me off a bit. That 50/50 would only favour the bigger votes and decrease the value in it for those with smaller stakes. I would get less value in votes and my votes would be worth less and wouldn't bring me enough value in return to compensate, for example. There have been several propositions that I've decided are harmful instead of beneficial.
Number 3 is not about condenser, the sorting algorithms are built into the network.
Decoupling from btc, and let it rise on it's own,
It has hel a lot of potential, and one of the under valued currency at the moment.
One great step to achieving this could be getting listed on Coinbase which is one of the biggest fiat to crypto exchanges in the U.S. The other one could be waiting for Binance to open up fiat gateways which I believe will happen soon.
For how many coins will Binance open a fiat gateway of their own?
$rewarding 15% 15 min
In a way all of them, if you're asking about pairing fiat to coins directly I am not sure. I have high hopes for Binance though considering they are also working on creating a decentralized exchange and if their centralized exchange only handles fiat it will be a big step forward for the safety of customers. Although I'm sure some people will prefer Binance keeping their coins safe instead of a private key they hold, people are weird. :P
Here in New York State Coinbase is pretty much the only exchange authorized. So I would be okay with that.
You got a 40.81% upvote from @mitsuko courtesy of @industriousliv!
STEEM is not coupled with BTC on any kind of technical level. The price action you're seeing is the result of market forces and quite blind at that, IMO. The entire altcoin space seems to be treated as a single entity by most investors.
It's hard to say these days, since "Maintenance Mode." One could yell at the clouds all day but will anything happen? I could offer plenty of ideas but today I did this, taking a wild guess and offering up some of what I see, in the future; things more dependent on the individuals and their own drive along with the benefits to us, as stakeholders.
Sorry for the link. I just don't want to write what I wrote there, here.
I would love the ability to merge multiple accounts by the same owner (and the content) into one where we pick 1 of the names as the main name and turn the rest into aliases. That way we solve the fact that we can't change our nickname.
The 100% power down time is 13 weeks in steemit and I think for this, people dont wanna invest for that long time. Max 4 weeks will encourage them to invest more money in it. This is my personal opinion about this.
Alao, MET is gonna create a tyfoon soon, so we better evolve to it and make sure that both authors and curators will be benefited by it.
stay well and keep steeming.
Posted using Partiko Android
The idea is to create stability, not to just "pump it up". The 3-month limitation certainly limits the amount people put in, but limiting the amount people pull out is also a good thing. It's not about the value of the currency but about its stability. What you're asking is to destabilise it in order to pump it up.
I'm personally not sure how decreasing the powerdown period would effect investors but I can see your point. Maybe have options that if you choose a faster powerdown you get less rewards from inflation/curation.
I didn't understand the last part of your comment.
That's one thing I wanted to propose. If you lock down your Steem and make a hard-coded smart-contract promise to not power down for, say, 1 month or more, you should be able to enter some kind of "ultra mode" where your stake is worth more.
How about earning a little interest on what you keep locked in Steem Power.... like a CD