Steem 0.14.1 Released - Hardfork Postponed until 9/20/2016
Over the weekend some of our community code reviewers discovered some issues with the 0.14.0 release. The elected witnesses opted to stay on version 0.13.0 until we could make the necessary changes.
We are happy to report that Steem 0.14.1 is now available. Assuming the supermajority of the elected witnesses upgrade by Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 15:00:00 UTC the new features will take effect. These features include: Escrow, Savings, Steem Dollar stability, and more. Please see the release notes for more details.
Hardfork Process
A hardfork is a change in the business logic that powers Steem. The Steem network has many checks and balances to ensure everything is vetted by a decentralized group of trusted (elected) individuals before taking effect. No hardfork will take effect until at least 67% of the active witnesses have upgraded to 0.14.1 and it will take effect no earlier than Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:00:00 UTC.
Just because Steemit, Inc releases a new version of code does not mean that everyone is forced to upgrade to the new code. It is this review process that caused our prior release (0.14.0) to be rejected by the witnesses.
Once a supermajority of active witnesses upgrade the hardfork takes effect at the appointed time. Steemit, Inc attempts to give all parties ample time to upgrade their machines so that the changeover is seamless. Any exchanges that do not upgrade will automatically be taken offline by the existing consensus logic. Assuming everything works as designed there will never be a minority fork created by 0.13.0 nodes.
Voting Power Algorithm Unchanged
Due to feedback from the community we have decided to exclude changes in how voting power is determined. It is clear that we did not communicate our intentions nor the expected result in a way that everyone can get behind.
It is still our desire to rebalance the voting power to maximize the influence ordinary users have relative to automated users. We intend to document and communicate our enhanced solutions.
Thank You
We would like to thank everyone who is helping to review the code, catch bugs, and submit pull requests. It is a pleasure to work with such an engaged community.
If there was a NOTICE button flashing on users home page, that everyone can click and see changes, events, important info, reliable, actually from Steemit. Oh no put it in a blog, that way only some may see, and collect earnings off it. The rest of the community will be left to feed off of the rumors.
Agree and downvoted OP by 1% to show symbolic agreement. If there were a large reward I would downvote stronger but it doesn't currently appear to be necessary.
Why not use the same notification message they used during and after the hack? More people would see these posts in time...
In the beginning I waa actively looking for an official steemit blog about the changes and future updates, took me a couple days to realize that blog existed here only.
I agree, official steemit changed should be sent it via a notification system, not blog posts format.
its on steemit.chat under announcements too usually.
yeah that is true, not everyone uses steemitchat though, where as everyone who would be interested in the updates uses steemit, so why not announce it here as well, it could be announced in both places?
Great to see the platform progressing. I would like to ask you after the 9/20/2016 changes take place to shift your attention to something that should be much more important than you have been treating it.
The current MUTE function does not work.
It would of course work better if you added one tiny little thing to it that really shouldn't take long which makes me wonder why it hasn't been done yet.
You can't see the rape threats... How nice for you.
But the people recieving them in their Reply feed can read them.
Can you imagine reading stuff like this all day
And there are plenty of users engaging with this troll, even dolphins trying to bump up his reputation. He would get bored much quicker if you just programmed either the MUTE function or the reputation function so that replies from these trolls would be completely invisible to the receiver.
He literally goes from one woman to the next! Please make this a priority! Just because he's only harassing one gender of the community doesn't make it any less of an issue!
are you triggered yet ? :)
I tell you exactly what Im doing and you still fall, every time
How does the mute function not work? I've noticed many negative rep accounts are hardly visible in the comment section.
That account won't stop until the authors ignore it and stop replying to it, that's his/her only fuel.
You're saying it's the authors fault for responding! Fine. I stop responding, he gets bored and moves on to the next target! Very helpful of you.
Thank you for being so sensitive to the issue...
I care about the issue and didn't think of it being visible in the reply, apologize for that.
What I don't care about is making the mute issue this huge of a thing as if someone is forcing her to read comments from an already confirmed troll.
Maybe adding colors to usernames depending on their reputation could help with that?
Is it just me or don't other see that big of an issue with this? Have you ever owned a youtube account and tried posting there? Did you find it preposterous that random strangers were bullying you on the internet in text format in a comment section?
If that already turned you away than you are not going to be too fond of the decentralization of the internet and its platforms...
With that being said, threats aren't a joking matter, but instead of fueling those users with more and more attention and ruining this place for yourself cause 'the mute button didn't work', try ignoring it and it will stop over time. I am sure. No one likes to waste time knowing no one else is giving it any attention. Not even major trolls like this one.
Already confirmed troll?? Newbies don't know who he is... They're not even aware of the meaning of the reputation and when they do become aware he can pretend it was all a misunderstanding and he was victimised. You can't expect everybody to go and confirm with the blockchain.
His tactics are to go from being your "friend" and making you care about what he thinks (as there are many users here I've come to care about) to doxxing and insinuating what he knows about you before he begins properly harassing, then back to hugs and friendship then back to punches in the gut.
To a passer by, it can look like some of his comments are sweet and innocent but when somebody goes from punching you to hugging you to punching you back to hugging you on repeat, it's not long before the hugs become less than comforting and part of the abuse!
there were no rape threats
shes just trying to manipulate you...
Could you not edit the comment without saying what you changed? That's really confusing and may change the light my comments are viewed in considering your first sentence says something completely different than there was before.
The comment I changed said the exact same thing as the original comment that everybody can still see.
she does that consistently, she thinks she is smart, that nobody can see it
also, wtf? Why WOULDN'T it be an issue cause its another gender? Why even bring that up?
Seems like a try at creating more drama than necessary.
Seems like your changing the subject to negate the issue.
This particular troll revels in the idea of being invisible. He actually thinks he's using it to his advantage because now nobody notices what he's doing until somebody plays the victim. We shouldnt be made ashamed of reporting this!
I am inclined to agree with this statement. On a specific occasssion, when i upvoted a hidden post of his because i thought it oughtn't be hidden, he replied in one of my threads and asked me to remove my upvote.
IMO, the real problem in this particular case (and also in the cases of r4fken) is that acccounts which no longer to have anything to lose are allowed to endure and wreak whatever havoc they can concieve and implement.
Perhaps a solution might be a vest penalty for negative R-share posts. It couldn't be the same full magnitude of positive rewards (as that would allow high steem power accounts to basically steal money from posters if they wished to do so), but even something like a 5SP max penalty for a post with enough negative Rshares would be sufficient to destroy even relatively high SP accounts like R4fken's.
It would also permanenly kill off users like the Sports streaming people (because an account can't function without at least some SP, iiuc). True, they could just go get/make more accounts, but that costs money. The vests taken could either be destoryed (and thus become SP incentives) or could go to the flaggers as a kind of reverse curation reward.
I'm not saying you should be ashamed for reporting it, but its kind of starting to sound as if I went to the mechanic that is repairing my car and kept asking him to fix the stereo even though he is working on the engine.
who's shaming you?
exactly , she is trying to intimidate you with shaming tactics, basically implying you are a mysoginist because you dont agree with her
Oh and I just read your comment and thought I could chime in with my thoughts, thanks for getting all self-defensive and making me look like an insensitive asshole. Good luck.
This is absolutely Unbelievable.... No one should have to put up with this crap on the comment section. The mute, block, or what ever you want to call it should work. If it doesn't then that should be a high priority. I have not seen this kind of post, but if I had, I would have done a post about it. I can't stand these kinds of childish behaviors from so called adults.
Thank you. I would prefer to get a response from ned or dan confirming that this will be addressed imminently as I do not wish to make a post about it. But if this doesn't get their attention I may have to, and I have a lot of respect for the developers and the hard work they are doing. I think it is perhaps because the comments are hidden that they don't realise how serious the issue has become.
The reason you can't see the the posts is an inherent flaw in the reputation system. Once his reputation goes below zero only the receiver can see the comments which is worse! Because there is nobody to defend the receiver or offer emotional support. The receiver has to do what I'm doing which makes me look like a crybaby. Nobody likes a crybaby...
But fuck it, I'm doing this for @stellabelle, @moony, @lauralemons, @craig-grant, @svetlanaart, @florentina, @halo, @fairytalelife, @claudiop63, @camilla, and his all his next targets probably including @luminousvisions, @iamgreta, @elemenya, @clevecross, @radioactivities, @dana-edwards, @bitcoinpoet, @steemship, @steemed-open, @mgaft1, @sean-king, @benjmiller222, and @rok-sivante.
I have been collecting data to post about it. But since the solution is such a simple one I'm hoping I won't need to.
you are not gonna be able to manipulate the devs nor the founders, they have strong minds,
and they know why they are doing what they are doing, you do not
rape theats? what rape threats beanz, you are delusional,
show me the rape threats
If posting stuff is the new mining then im going to RAPE this coin!
Voting Power Algorithm was dropped because many users were under the impression that their vote would be worth 8x more, but that was not the case, so if it was implemented and the votes did not reflect the 8x value, shit would have hit the fan. I was looking forward to upvoting myself 5 times per day at $2 per vote and stop voting after that.. oh well, that would have been cool. I am content with the current system.
It was over a 5 day rolling period though... it would take 5 days to get back to $2 after that right?
No. If you were to vote 5 times per day under that system your voting power would return to 100% each day. 5 times per day is a rate. 20% recharge per day (equivalent to 100% per five days) is also a rate. If the two rates match or the recharge rate is higher than draw down rate, your voting power does not decline.
Interesting... thanks for the clarification
if I vote more than 5 times in 24 hours at 100%, then my vote power goes down
in the current system or the proposed one?
in the current system it is 40 times in 24 hours, then my vote power starts going down
Ok, that is what I thought, but it also says over a rolling 5 day period. Meaning if you voted 5 times in one day (for the proposed system), you would not have max voting power (or $2 in your example) for 5 more days... not 24 hours like was implied...
That sounds like it would have been a really great plan for the platform, its users, and the growth of it!
Regardless of my opinion of the voting change, more documentation and communication is definitely the way to go!
Consider my proposal for curation changes. I'm arguing that repeatedly voting for the same author should cause the vote to weight less.
Why should voting for the same author have less weight if that creator is making quality things on a regular basis? I think curation bots should have less weight which would encourage more organic upvotes.
That's discussed in his posts and comments if you're interested in checking out his reasons.
As @shenanigator mentioned, I go in more detail in my post. Part of the point you already got: it's the behavior of lots of curation bots.
Upvoting for awesome news and listening to users.
So why did you opted to disable a good change when all you had to do is explain the change better? Actually people have done that that explanation for your already [see biophil's post , I am sure others have done too]
Always fun to show up and find myself being discussed. My abbreviated 2 cents: I was looking forward to the change, but saying "you can now spend 8x more voting power per vote" (which is a correct statement of the proposed changes, and what I've been saying all along) is subtly different from saying "your vote will be worth 8x more" (see the discussions between myself and @sigmajin). I think the changes would have ultimately been good, but there's nothing urgent about them and I think there's no harm in having more discussion and analysis before a change is made.
Biophils post was misleading, IMO. This change would have hurt the voting power of active curators and getting rid of it was a good idea.
A lot of people tried to spin the "explanation" of this change to convince everyone that their votes would b e 8x stronger -- this explanation was suppositious at best.
Your understanding of the change is also lacking.
There are good reasons for the change, but explaining it and getting community buy in would take longer than a week. We also didn't want to put witnesses in the uncomfortable position of having a controversial change bundled in with so many other obvious and non-contraversial changes.
I respectfully disagree @dantheman. @sigmajin's explanation was clear, largely if not entirely accurate, and reasonably complete. He covered the issue of automated voting in an accurate manner, which is to say that changes of this nature can not differentiate between automated voting and non-automated users who invest time and effort into active curation. To shift influence away from one with this parameter change unavoidably means also shifting influence away from the other.
If I were to find fault in his analysis, it would be failing to consider changes in behavior, but I do not find this extended analysis likely to help support the change. Both humans and bots may respond to the change by voting less often using the same total vote power, and instead spending the rest of their time at the beach, or on Facebook (or wherever it is that bots go for time away from Steemit). I fail to see how this voluntarily-reduced engagement would be beneficial in any significant way.
Nevertheless that is indeed a separate issue from the process of how or if these changes get made. The decision to pull it out of the release containing other useful improvements was a good one and I support that.
I think i understand the effect pretty clearly, though i really don't get the programming internals, because i don't know how to code. If there's something im missing, I am certainly always eager to learn.
Many of the witnesses upvoted my post about the effect of the proposed voting changes in .14... while that doesn't necessarily signal agreement, in the absence of explicit criticism it seems to signal the acknowledgement of at least a basic, rudimentary comprehension on my part.
@james-show If you read the discussion between me and @biophil, he even admits that his post would be misleading to those thinking of vote strength in terms of money, which is the way other posters like sheninagator were characterizing it.
Phil and I even ended up agreeing on the general potential effects later on in my post about the change.
If its the one about concentrating voting power (potentially even as far as one a day), i agree with you to an extent. But what you don't mention (idk if you get it or not) is that if you started with, say, 40 votes worth $1 each, concentrating them all to 1 vote day would not yield one $40 vote. At least not necessarily. It would yield a vote worth more than 1 dollar and less than 40. Where on the scale it would fall would be largely dependent on other poeples' voting habits, which are difficult to anticipate.
@james-show when you say
This is true. And, iiuc, if you vote this way, your 30 votes will be exactly the same in terms of how many Rshares they are worth. IN fact, you don't even have to set the slider, as your vote power will eventually just hit that equilibrium.
However, in terms of real money those percentage adjusted votes will not be the same as they were. Those 12.5% votes will not be worth the same as your 100% votes used to be. They will be worth less. How much less depends on the voting habits of the other people in the system and is difficult to anticipate.
So yes, everything you're saying about adjusting your vote percentage and nothing changing is true, if youre talking about Rshares. If you're talking about post payout, then not so much (at least not necessarily).
this is one of biophils comments on my earlier posts on the subject.
You for sure do not understand the change if you think:
or that there was in any way shape or form any 'spinning' in his explanation
And I am not talking about you "understanding the exact way it is coded", I mean his explanation is exact and mathematically correct.... but then again I think 1 vote/day target or even 0.5 votes (per current explanation) is beneficial for any and all curators (more so for the smaller ones)...
I am answering to you here @sigmajin because of the max depth.
Now, I would have explain it differently than biohil. I do not know if it would have been more easy to grasp for the people that do not get it from his explanation...if you are interested here is a short version of my explanation . [I did not bother writing it in full article, as I 99.99% of the time I end up with less reward than my time is worth.]
If you want to curate just as you do now:
Divide 5 by the # of votes you do now (per day); Use the result as a% vote weight. So say you cast 30 votes/day now; 5/30= 0.167 or 16.7%. In the new system cast your votes at 16.7% wight.
I can see some potential benefits as well as some possible problems. My initial understanding of it was at least a little off, but after some discussion and debates on Steemit, I think I now have a reasonably sound handle on it. I'm looking forward to a further explanation from you regarding the proposed change.
Yeah, I've been looking forward to this voting power change ever since I read about it. It's disappointing that such an obviously beneficial change is being rejected, even by the very people who it's going to help the most.
I've actually told friends this week to wait and sign up for steemit after this fork because it's going to be so much better for new minnows... I'm probably going to tell them to wait longer now. That's ok... I'm sure it will change eventually.
A bit disappointed, I was looking forward to the voting power change today. It had the potential to increase the overal voting power of smaller SP holders, and it would have been interesting to see what would have really happened.
On the other hand, a lot of people might have started to refrain from voting where they voted before, potentially making it more difficult for posts to get likes, especially those of undiscovered authors.
I agree, I was looking forward to the change too. So just like the matrix, The bots win! ;) lol Wheres Neo?
good one
I still wait for reward mechanism changing. I am a strong proponent of these changes, because they harm bots most of all and bring power back to ordinar users. It is sad (but obvious) that powerfull users are against this change.
This is the exact type of communication that we need. I'm a writer, not a blockchain expert so I desperately need posts like this to help me to wrap
My head around what is going on "behind the curtain". This type of communication really helps build trust that those with the power and know how are working towards the same goal as the content creators. I truly appreciate the effort it took to post this in a way that a novice like me can understand. If this type of communication continues, there will be a much more positive vibe as it will help eliminate the fear of the unknown. Because fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate (master yoda... Had to get a Star Wars plug in there somewhere). In summary thank you.
Hey steemit staff,
Nice to see you listening to the community and waiting until the majority is happy before making the change. :)