You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF 20 - lessons finally learned?
As far as I can tell most of the resource pool balances are increasing not decreasing which means the cost of most transactions in terms of RC is decreasing.
All this means is that traffic is very low. Which, duh?
Finally, it isn't ever guaranteed that small accounts get to use all of their VP, or do much of anything else.
So basically your position is it's fine that someone needs to put hundreds of dollars in to have basic functionality? If that's intended behavior I'll be leaving as soon as the exchanges are open.
That is not what increasing pool balances mean. Increasing balances mean that RC prices are decreasing (i.e. each user's ability to interact with the blockchain is increasing, across all SP levels). This can happen at any absolute usage level.
I don't have a position either way in the abstract. It depends on the actual costs of some particular level of usage relative to price being charged for it. This can be attacked in different ways, such as making the blockchain implementation more efficient so it can support higher usage. Just cutting prices and inviting unconstrained usage (for example low-SP comment bots making hundreds or thousands of comments per day as was the case before) with no way to pay for it doesn't sound like a viable approach to me.
Surely you would agree that there must be some SP level where the account can't use all if its vote power, and generally speaking that "low SP" accounts must have limited usage, right? Maybe that is <5 SP, maybe it is <1 SP, or even <0.1 SP, or maybe it is <30 SP or higher. We can't just pull this number out of the air, real resources must exist to support it (including with a much larger user base with many more such accounts).
AFAIK, the RC system was designed on the basis of physical resource budgets (for example, that it is sustainable for the blockchain to grow at ____ MB per day, that ___ msec of CPU is allowable per block, etc.) and then allocating these resources between users such that they can't be exceeded in the aggregate. These are real resource limits upon which the survival of the system rests. Now it is possible there are bugs or miscalculations in the early estimates, and that is certainly being looked at. So we will see what adjustments make sense to make.
The very nature of a freemium system is that basic functionality must be free. Maybe that's "sponsored by @steemit" in the sense of resource usage, but it's not optional unless we're going to a pure pay-for-play model, which is not what anyone said they want, and is not something I believe will be practical in the long-term.
As I pointed out to @andrarchy before the fork, there's a real risk that what we discover under this system is that Steem never really worked in the first place. That seems to be where we're heading right now.
Yes I think we all agree on that. Where we may disagree is on the how to define "basic functionality".
Certainly true to some extent, though the magnitude is less clear. IMO it is better to discover and work on improving any mismatch between expectations or desires on the one hand and reality on the other than to continue to play make believe.
BTW, you may find this interesting on cost trends:
https://steemit.com/steem/@holger80/how-strong-are-the-rc-costs-changing