You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Steem Is Broken!?!" A Conversation with Sida of Partiko
This discussion answers many of the questions people have been asking. I tweeted it! I know that people don't want to spend 47 minutes to learn the nuanced details of the situation; it's easier and feels better to just vent frustrations. Fine. But for those who really want to know what is happening, I'll tell you that Steem is a new system in beta and it will not fit into the box in your mind that you want it to be in. Learn about the new box that it fits in, and in my opinion, is doing well in.
Thanks Kenny. These are complicated systems with complicated solutions. People have centralized expectations on decentralized systems. It does not map well.
So far the interview looks great and I wish I had time to listen to it all. With respect to the issue of reverting, I just wanted to highlight the point that "reverting" would be intentionally choosing a broken system. It would be like in the midst of a life saving surgery someone went, "Wait, this hurts, I want to go back to having my fatal disease." Could we have done a better job facilitating the transition? Absolutely. But this is totally new territory and there are no guides to follow. This change in particular was an incredibly critical component of the stack. It's really like swapping out the engine of a car while in motion, as opposed to replacing the rear view mirror or the radio. Every hardfork will involve a different piece of the stack, but I suspect few will involve such a foundational component.
We just have to keep getting better as we go. Ultimately, the main question behind hardforks will be, "Is the potential improvement that comes from this code worth the risks associated with changing the blockchain?" There will always be risks associated with hardforking. Blockchains aren't optimized to be changed, precisely the opposite. But Steem's ability to make these improvements is, IMO, a critical component of its value proposition and those who think that by simply freezing progress we will somehow benefit the system, I believe are missing this critical point. What we need to improve is how we work together as a community to develop and test the code to ensure risks are minimized. There's a lot we at Steemit need to do to that end, but there is also more that the witnesses and other developers need to do as well. But I have never been more confident that we will all work together to do what is necessary. These are trials by fire and what doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Thanks @andrarchy. Maybe when you get bored in all your free time 😂you could put it up on 2x play seed on YouTube (life saver!) to catch the rest. We do address how the witnesses and the application owners can and should do more to help with the testing process. More time doesn't automatically mean people will prioritize testing. I think this experience showed us all how, if we want a better outcome, we need to take more personal responsibility for improving the process. If the testnet wasn't exactly right, we should have figured that out early on, made changes, and then moved forward with more accurate testing on the testnet. As it was, people (myself included) only got around to really tinkering at the last minute. We can't do that going forward if we expect a different result.
Amen. And just to clarify, I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone. While this has all been less than ideal and extremely stressful, I can't help but feel proud of what we've all managed to accomplish, even if to some it seems like an apparent failure. We just improved our bandwidth algorithm. So far every issue is temporary. I am perfectly comfortable saying that while we did a bunch of things wrong, we all have plenty to be proud of.
I do think Steem is an amazing blockchain doing some amazing things which only some have the technical capacity to fully appreciate. I do think there is (and will be) plenty to be proud of. I also hope there will be a detailed explanation of the things which did go wrong so the community can better understand the quality of the developers building Steem and what steps they are taking to avoid these types of mistakes in the future.
I would certainly be more frustrated if, after each hard-fork, I had to spend a tonne of mental energy figuring out which chain is the most adopted to move forward with, or start juggling multiple wallets. I appreciate that there is continuity in the community and core-chain (for lack of a better term) rather than chaos that comes with splitting chains and issues of that ilk.
If this were similar to ETH & ETH-Classic, or Bitcoin and Bitcoin-Cash -- I'd have a SUBSTANTIALLY more difficult time convincing my peers to give it a shot. A little downtime and hiccups in early stages like this are significantly more palatable, IMO.