Rejecting HF17, and a few thoughts
I will not support the scheduled hardfork 17 and will not update my nodes to it unless I'm overruled by the other witnesses.
While some of the changes are desperately needed, others are too controversial and in my opinion damaging. Generally, I think future releases should have fewer changes included, but we need them coming faster.
I've written a lot about the current situation here, but deleted all of that because it's not worth publishing. No need for more rants. Let me just say that I think dan's not a big loss, he's not been working much on steem anyway the last months. What I hope to come out of this situation is that the rest of Steemit Inc. ramps up their communication game and development speed. That's what has been lacking all the time, and that's the only thing we should really be worried about.
I am not witness, but I also have advocated with fewer but more frequent changes. If too many changes are implemented at once it is difficult to prove which item explains correlation in changes to stats, and other things. It becomes guesswork.
Was just about to eat dinner when I saw this and felt the need to respond.
The most important change we should be implementing right now (IMO) is the change to a more linear rewards curve yet that is the only thing that isn't in it.
If I am mistaken please correct me or tell me why I'm wrong.
I think it is better to talk these things through.
I agree, but that's got nothing to do with my decision. I would have rejected with the curve included too.
Right but what if was the curve, the nesting limit change and post editing and everything else was postponed?
That's pretty much what I'd wish for, yes
It is common diagnostic strategy to implement small changes, or at least few changes at a time. This is the right way to do things for a number of reasons.
I agree with you and appreciate your effort to make this a better platform for us all to enjoy and benefit from.
So what happens now? I asked @abit the same question. What consensus is required for the hardfork to happen?
Also, I'm missing the logic in wanting changes to come more often while preventing a change. Couldn't we move forward with this and then change it back if something doesn't work out?
I got a reply from @abit here. It seems we need 17 witnesses to approve a hardfork.
That's right.
The fixed 7 day payout period won't solve any issues we have, but open the doors to abuse by last minute upvotes.
The comment reward pool is controversial, and may be unnecessary if we had the curve change instead.
I agree
https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/a-single-7-day-payout-is-not-a-good-idea-imo
And comment pool is seperating blogs from comments which is the opposite of what we need, we need a standardized and simple chain that any businesses can implement regardless of their structure model. Many won't have a blog/comment structure and steem need to be as polyvalent as possible.
Also the experiment has shown that the problem isn't that people dont vote for comment but stake disparity, a lot more comment are now being rewarded.
Thanks for clarifying your views. I didn't realize the 7 day payout period was fixed. That does seem open to abuse.
Oh, that is interesting. I had not thought about that. Is this because the current system extends the payout window for every vote? I haven't looked at the code for it, but even in the current system, isn't there a limit to how far the payout can be delayed?
The delay is stake weighted in relation to the votes that were cast before. If you vote on a 0$ post the payout is delayed for 24 hours. So any major vote on a low rated post will result in a significant delay right now.
So, just to be clear, they are replacing the 24 hour payout followed by a 30 day payout with a 7 day payout?
Who proposed this, and why?
I've not seen whose idea it was, I guess it's coming from the steemit devs.
The reasoning they gave is that it simplifies calculation, and it's the timespan in which 99+% of votes are happening.
@pharesim overruled!
haha you gotta fork it if you gotta fork it!
sorry I'm lost - this was a meme haha
I agree 100%
We also need to add ways to measure community reaction to new ideas for steemit. We should have a poll that lasts a few days before deciding what to do for each hardfork.
Thanks for the statement. You write
Let me just say that I think dan's not a big loss, he's not been working much on steem anyway the last months.
What is your feeling about the dev team. Are they able to implement Fabric or Smart Contracts on Steem-Blockchain without dan?
Yes they are, absolutely.
Good to know :-)
I definitely like the idea of more hardforks with fewer changes in each. It makes more sense and adjustments can be made accordingly.
I think it should be rolling release with line items up for vote and a deadline set for each (based on the dev's expectations of time needed for implementation). Lots more little numbers after the number. Let's have a proper vote and discussion about HF 16.3.1 which might have 3 changes. Instead of HF17 that has 20 changes. I'm exaggerating a little but you get the idea.
Hard forking has a social cost, and it is my hope we can keep it to a quarterly pace. The curve alone took weeks to research and discuss with the community, and it's still not done.
This post needs concrete, actionable feedback. What changes would need to be removed for you to run it?
I went into details here, and fully agree with @snowflake's comment
The social cost is bigger when an update contains a lot of changes. It wasn't even possible to discuss the controversial points in this one, because there's so much good stuff coming with it that the criticism went unheard. I still think it would be better to have fewer changes in a faster pace.
What wil the hardfork do? and my upvote of this ppst is in no way a vote against the hardfprk, i dont know enoough to make a decision, i just wanna hear what ur criticism is, but reemmber Nail that stick out get hammered down, lol just kidding