RE: Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus by liberosist

View this thread on steempeak.com

Viewing a response to: @steemitblog/patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus

· @liberosist ·
$5.51
Needs two simple changes to reach consensus - 

- Eliminate the separate comment reward pool.
- Add anti-abuse mechanism to 7-day payout. 

Source: https://steemit.com/steem/@liondani/transparency-witnesses-opinions-on-hard-fork-17-futures

It would seem like the obvious thing to do - make these changes, let Hardfork 17 pass on 28th March, then work on convincing witnesses why the comment reward pool is a good idea for Hardfork 18. Hardfork 17 has been delayed far too long, we need to get moving.
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id2,198,409
authorliberosist
permlinkre-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t150124347z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "links": ["https://steemit.com/steem/@liondani/transparency-witnesses-opinions-on-hard-fork-17-futures"], "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}"
created2017-03-20 15:01:33
last_update2017-03-20 15:01:33
depth1
children6
net_rshares4,342,623,392,200
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value4.138 SBD
curator_payout_value1.376 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length501
author_reputation128,495,787,068,198
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (25)
@timcliff ·
$0.08
That's a great suggestion. Makes a lot of sense.
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id2,201,663
authortimcliff
permlinkre-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t204153501z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}"
created2017-03-20 20:41:54
last_update2017-03-20 20:41:54
depth2
children0
net_rshares133,907,815,158
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.062 SBD
curator_payout_value0.020 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length48
author_reputation262,354,724,187,317
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@snowflake · (edited)
$0.32
I agree, those 2 features are the ones preventing consensus to be reached.
I say take them off HF17 so we can discuss them further, all the other changes are good and non controversial.

EDIT:  Actually I'm not sold on SP delegation either. 

SP delegation will allow large stake holders to completely bypass the current experiment as they will be able to easily delegate power to themselves and use all their voting power.  Users have a lot more power now, even minnows can make a small difference so I don't see the point of this feature.
We need something like an investor class to incentivize large stake holder to not vote.

More on investor class https://steemit.com/hardfork-17/@steemitblog/patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus#@snowflake/re-freebornangel-re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-freebornangel-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t224904820z
👍  ,
properties (23)
post_id2,201,746
authorsnowflake
permlinkre-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t205108537z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "links": ["https://steemit.com/hardfork-17/@steemitblog/patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus#@snowflake/re-freebornangel-re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-freebornangel-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t224904820z"], "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}"
created2017-03-20 20:51:09
last_update2017-03-20 22:56:03
depth2
children1
net_rshares475,524,877,355
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.243 SBD
curator_payout_value0.080 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length906
author_reputation33,282,981,394,546
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@smooth ·
$0.26
If there is a major problem with 'bypassing' then bots can be told to aggregate all delagated stake votes. Since the delgation is on-chain it is visible. Actually moving the stake to smaller accounts is a bigger potential problem. I agree as you know that better investor-class incentives are needed.
👍  , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id2,203,408
authorsmooth
permlinkre-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t184542369z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata{}
created2017-03-20 23:48:21
last_update2017-03-20 23:48:21
depth3
children0
net_rshares396,370,275,368
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.198 SBD
curator_payout_value0.065 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length300
author_reputation119,002,354,889,508
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (5)
@pfunk · (edited)
$1.47
Good comment though I disagree with this: 

>then work on convincing witnesses why the comment reward pool is a good idea for Hardfork 18. 

The reward curve super-linearity needs to be reduced first. This is a change that is wanted by a lot of users, stakeholders, and witnesses (I almost regret not polling about it, but we were trying to keep it focused on what is at hand rather than a future update). However, its implementation might have been premature because there was so much else going on, and it was pulled from this hard fork release.

Reward curve first, see results, and only then talk about a separate comment pool again. Even if a flatter reward curve doesn't materialize the hoped-for comment rewards, a separate comment pool comes with its own issues and baggage.

I want to see a more focused, less "omnibus" approach to major changes being made to Steem for the future, so that the potential positive and negative consequences of any change can be discussed and explored in-depth.

Edit: I have made a post about why the Steem reward pool is better left whole: https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
properties (23)
post_id2,203,109
authorpfunk
permlinkre-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t230928635z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "links": ["https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole"], "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}"
created2017-03-20 23:09:33
last_update2017-03-26 02:30:21
depth2
children2
net_rshares1,718,912,249,024
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value1.358 SBD
curator_payout_value0.116 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length1,164
author_reputation208,395,764,935,287
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (16)
@smooth ·
$0.34
I agree @liberosist in the sense that is how the process should ideally work, in particular, "then work on convincing". Perhaps that attempt would be successful, maybe not, but that is the healthier process rather than trying to porkbarrel it in or pressure people into it.
👍  
properties (23)
post_id2,203,349
authorsmooth
permlinkre-pfunk-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t183457359z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata{}
created2017-03-20 23:40:36
last_update2017-03-20 23:40:36
depth3
children0
net_rshares499,565,440,004
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.256 SBD
curator_payout_value0.085 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length273
author_reputation119,002,354,889,508
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@liberosist ·
Sure, I agree with you about reward curve first. I feel the next hardfork could just be the reward curve and bug fixes etc. rolled out in April rather than wait till June and bundle other features. A quarterly cadence makes sense for a more stable product, but the reward curve change seems urgent in getting to a MVP. 

In my comment above I was merely making suggestions from the developers' perspective. They obviously believe in the comment rewards pool, so let them bring forth their argument. The community could then counter argue that the reward curve fix may solve both issues etc.
properties (22)
post_id2,204,793
authorliberosist
permlinkre-pfunk-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170321t034458762z
categoryhardfork-17
json_metadata"{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}"
created2017-03-21 03:45:09
last_update2017-03-21 03:45:09
depth3
children0
net_rshares0
last_payout2017-04-20 18:59:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 SBD
curator_payout_value0.000 SBD
pending_payout_value0.000 SBD
promoted0.000 SBD
body_length590
author_reputation128,495,787,068,198
root_title"Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 SBD
percent_steem_dollars10,000