Steem 0.17.0 released but I won't upgrade as is
Release info is here: https://github.com/steemit/steem/releases/tag/v0.17.0
As I replied in the HF17 update post:
I disagree with these changes:
- Standardized payouts on a 7 day timer
- Comment reward pool
Neutral
- keep the n^2 reward distribution curve for longer time
(The point is to bring author reward beneficiaries and SP delegation this time. If it's too hard to decide the curve, we can keep it unchanged for a while.)
Others features/changes are OK for me.
//Update:
Some people want to hear the reasons, so I'm writing here.
The fixed 7-day payout time: abusers can upvote a post right before payout to secure a payout. Others usually won't notice it and unable to counteract. There are discussions in this github issue: https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/900
Comment reward pool: Make a UI for comments first. Also, with n^2 reward distribution mechanism, likely it will be gamed.
Do what you think is right. This is a consensus platform. As a witness you were voted in to take the deeper look at changes and represent the collective. Apathy is not part of the expected role. Do what you believe is right for the community. Disagree, Disagree-and-Commit, or Agree.
So what happens next? Is 100% witness agreement required for the blockchain to hardfork? I've been googling around but not finding answers.
Also, you're currently the top witness, even with the flagging campaign so many people seem to be upset about. If so many people are upset, why are you the top witness? Is it that all those people don't have enough Steem Power to make a dent in who is a witness or is it they don't care to adjust their witness vote?
With all the drama going on here, maybe it's a good idea to push forward with at least some agreement and then make changes later if they are needed?
Need at least 17 witnesses' approval to apply a hard fork.
I guess some people hate me but some love me.
We're looking for consensus/agreements.
you are top1 witness so u are beloved :))
Thank you.
I truly hope you find consensus and agreement. I'd personally like to see changes moving forward, with corrections. We gain knowledge by trying to disprove our hypotheses. If we don't make changes, we get no new information. There have been changes in the past that were changed back again. I prefer that approach, but I know others would rather keep everything steady.
Yep just people's opinions speculating about what might happen without any actual evidence. I mean ideally we are not like a government and if something works it is easier to take a step back. :)
And we don't use guns or nuclear bombs. That's a huge plus. :)
no love, no hate but I have doubt on the change to 7 day payout window. It's a big change for 24 hour though I'm not violently objecting because in the long term maybe it's a good idea. perhaps, time for another experiment. OK, people are going to hate me for saying the experiment. :-)
no, I love you for saying experience.
Seriously? Are the changes really so bad that you think that Steem can't work anymore if they are implemented?
Declining to go with the hardfork shouldn't be used every time there is disagreement over some changes. It should be used only with hardforks that can have seriously negative impact to the blockchain.
If you think that those two changes are extremely dangerous to Steem, you should explain why. Just "disagreeing" is not a real reason to opt out.
If the stakeholders don't like the decisions of the top witnesses, the stakeholders will find new witnesses whose decisions they do like. It's pretty straightforward, I think.
That said, I agree it's petty. I just don't think witnesses being petty will remain witnesses indefinitely, so the problem will resolve itself.
Check this: https://steemit.com/witness-category/@pharesim/rejecting-hf17-and-a-few-thoughts#@pharesim/re-lukestokes-re-lukestokes-re-pharesim-rejecting-hf17-and-a-few-thoughts-20170316t105742213z
Thank you for your witness update. As a community member, I'm all right with waiting until the dust settles. But I'm also in favor of more hardforks with smaller changes that can be quickly adjusted.
What's your objection to a single payout? I'm curious, I figured that one would be the least objectionable.
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/900
Also @bhuz wrote a new post and I agree with it.
//More update: actually I'm still neutral on a single payout, also 7 day is ok for me, it worth a try. But I'm strongly against the 1-minute review period. By considering that we don't have much resource to change code back and forth, If I'm a dev, I will: based on latest code, make as least changes as possible.