RE: I unvoted all top 20 witnesses in protest of how HF20 went.
Hey, @wizardave.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. The question after the unvotes becomes, who replaces them that's any better? Who has the expertise and will take the time to actually look at the hard fork code, test it all, etc.?
My concern is, even if we could affect that change from our puny SP positions, who would be any better? Who would not kowtow to Steemit Inc, or the whales that put them there? And how long would they last if they did?
Maybe if a decent amount of us decided not to vote for anyone, and made it known why in similar posts, that would get someone's attention? From what I've seen, people like to put their errors and misdeeds behind them, without really, truly getting enough grief or actually doing much suffering of consequences for it.
Maybe there needs to be a tad bit more of that, somehow.
re: one witness to stand up
My understanding of how this works may not be correct, but I believe all that is required is a supermajority, and I've been told that it's 17/21. So, five among the Top 20 plus one would have to not go for the upgrade and that would stop it.
We do seem to find ourselves in a conundrum, don't we?
co·nun·drum
kəˈnəndrəm
noun
a confusing and difficult problem or question.
Perhaps the top witnesses should pool a bit of their income and hire a team of at least 1 topnotch programmer.
Maybe we could get our institutions of higher education involved. As they are teaching and training wannabe programmers, they could look at and teach blockchain technology. This is something I've proposed over the years about various things. They waste time writing junk code that does absolutely nothing, when they could spend time learning and helping open source code. A win-win situation for the students and the open source projects.
I have read more than one witness say there should be only 1 major change per hardfork. This would allow better testing and code review.
re: 17/21
yes, that does sound correct.
Well, one major change per hard fork would mean that we still would have had issues with resource credits, regardless, since no one seemed to know going in that it would do what it did. Which to me, seems incredible, that you would let go something on the blockchain that you don't know precisely what it's going to do. Which leads me to believe that they did, but for some reason, such as cover their rears, it made more sense to just feign ignorance.
We probably need a total revamping of high school and college, but that's as likely to happen as anything really that beneficial coming out of them since now their sole purpose seems to be to teach "how not to think or reason." The exact opposite of what their mission should be. If the emphasis were more on technical aspects of doing work or having a career rather than socialization and social indoctrination, than maybe we'd have something.
I'm good with having a hard fork every other three to six months, letting people know less about the technical side of things and more why they want to do it, what happens if it doesn't happen and more of what could happen when they do implement it, so they're not running around 11th hour saying, "They sky might fall. The sky might fall," but without any concrete way to prepare for it.
They, however, have already come up with all the answers for making sure this "never happens again" all the while not really disclosing what all of that might be but making sure it's said in such a way that we're the bad guys if we don't believe that they're doing what they say they're doing, which sounds a lot like what they should have been doing, if they actually are and it actually works, long before this hard fork took place.