There has been a renewed interest in low level changes to the Steem blockchain recently, and with this a renewed energy of debate, which I love to see.
The big ones are always these three:
- Curation rewards
- Removing access for bots
I usually jump in on the comments so I'm not going to talk about that the topics directly, rather I'm going to mention a structural problem often common to these ideas:
A lack of basis in technical feasibility
While blue-sky thinking and "ideation" is really really important, ideas remain as ideas if there is not at least an imagined route through technology. The idea lives or dies on the plausibility of that route. While the idea may be possible using another technical route, one must be found.
Note, it sucks that I have to say this, but I will: I'm not trying to shut anyone down or call for censorship. I'm calling for you to get real and do some research.
In the video Compost-Fueled Cars: Wouldn't That Be Great?, satirical media producer The Onion summarizes the flaw of the approach well I think. Enjoy, it's funny 😜
Counter to this style, @dan led well by example here. The ideas and changes he proposed were always grounded in an intimate technical knowledge of the systems he was proposing to change. I'm not saying you need to be a genius to comment, I'm saying if your ideas about technical processes are lacking any technical basis, they are just step 1: the idea, with just as much evidenced plausibility as the compost-fueled car.
I'll leave you with this quote, what using imagination alone can lead to:
In my mind we could construct the car using technologies already available to us ... for just half the cost.
Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that anyone is as idiotic as the guy in the video. It's a comparison, stupid!