Viewing a response to: @steemitblog/patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus
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.
post_id | 2,198,409 |
---|---|
author | liberosist |
permlink | re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t150124347z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "links": ["https://steemit.com/steem/@liondani/transparency-witnesses-opinions-on-hard-fork-17-futures"], "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}" |
created | 2017-03-20 15:01:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-20 15:01:33 |
depth | 1 |
children | 6 |
net_rshares | 4,342,623,392,200 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 4.138 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 1.376 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 501 |
author_reputation | 128,495,787,068,198 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
pfunk | 0 | 976,116,933,919 | 100% | ||
pal | 0 | 7,516,942,437 | 0.5% | ||
stellabelle | 0 | 1,452,835,872,991 | 100% | ||
christoph3 | 0 | 5,224,715,435 | 100% | ||
elyaque | 0 | 35,626,029,860 | 18.75% | ||
ausbitbank | 0 | 105,320,788,887 | 100% | ||
jesta | 0 | 130,887,122,496 | 10% | ||
krystle | 0 | 28,208,279,108 | 100% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 58,838,136 | 100% | ||
shaka | 0 | 174,695,534,987 | 25% | ||
dirty.hera | 0 | 55,792,013 | 100% | ||
timcliff | 0 | 170,228,033,795 | 85% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 1,041,904,057,563 | 100% | ||
steemleak | 0 | 2,136,172,895 | 100% | ||
englishtchrivy | 0 | 62,695,191,575 | 100% | ||
pollux.one | 0 | 21,471,575,008 | 25% | ||
uwelang | 0 | 10,689,482,777 | 20% | ||
freiheit50 | 0 | 7,148,704,100 | 25% | ||
steemvest17 | 0 | 53,528,505,960 | 100% | ||
steemperor | 0 | 17,537,886,840 | 25% | ||
steempire | 0 | 31,237,245,736 | 25% | ||
bellastella | 0 | 1,251,265,527 | 25% | ||
mestyz | 0 | 60,778,538 | 100% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 3,020,692,662 | 10% | ||
decentralizd | 0 | 3,166,948,955 | 100% |
post_id | 2,201,663 |
---|---|
author | timcliff |
permlink | re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t204153501z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}" |
created | 2017-03-20 20:41:54 |
last_update | 2017-03-20 20:41:54 |
depth | 2 |
children | 0 |
net_rshares | 133,907,815,158 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.062 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.020 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 48 |
author_reputation | 262,354,724,187,317 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
jesta | 0 | 130,887,122,496 | 10% | ||
ambyr00 | 0 | 3,020,692,662 | 10% |
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
post_id | 2,201,746 |
---|---|
author | snowflake |
permlink | re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t205108537z |
category | hardfork-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"]}" |
created | 2017-03-20 20:51:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-20 22:56:03 |
depth | 2 |
children | 1 |
net_rshares | 475,524,877,355 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.243 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.080 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 906 |
author_reputation | 33,282,981,394,546 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
james212 | 0 | 434,992,517,001 | 100% | ||
timcliff | 0 | 40,532,360,354 | 20% |
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.
post_id | 2,203,408 |
---|---|
author | smooth |
permlink | re-snowflake-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t184542369z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | {} |
created | 2017-03-20 23:48:21 |
last_update | 2017-03-20 23:48:21 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
net_rshares | 396,370,275,368 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.198 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.065 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 300 |
author_reputation | 119,002,354,889,508 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
pal | 0 | 7,516,942,437 | 0.5% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 58,838,136 | 100% | ||
snowflake | 0 | 138,933,584,781 | 10% | ||
tibonova | 0 | 12,483,376,867 | 100% | ||
tarekadam | 0 | 237,377,533,147 | 100% |
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
post_id | 2,203,109 |
---|---|
author | pfunk |
permlink | re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t230928635z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "links": ["https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole"], "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}" |
created | 2017-03-20 23:09:33 |
last_update | 2017-03-26 02:30:21 |
depth | 2 |
children | 2 |
net_rshares | 1,718,912,249,024 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 1.358 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.116 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 1,164 |
author_reputation | 208,395,764,935,287 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
pfunk | 0 | 976,125,341,082 | 100% | ||
teamsteem | 0 | 0 | 2% | ||
justtryme90 | 0 | 109,631,262,561 | 30% | ||
christoph3 | 0 | 5,224,715,435 | 100% | ||
ausbitbank | 0 | 105,320,788,887 | 100% | ||
igster | 0 | 18,622,307,373 | 100% | ||
krystle | 0 | 28,208,279,108 | 100% | ||
rouketas | 0 | 58,838,136 | 100% | ||
liberosist | 0 | 414,639,745,549 | 100% | ||
dirty.hera | 0 | 55,792,013 | 100% | ||
steemleak | 0 | 2,136,172,895 | 100% | ||
rjbauer85 | 0 | 341,774,180 | 50% | ||
ocrdu | 0 | 14,435,078,910 | 50% | ||
the-devil | 0 | 381,115,401 | 50% | ||
leongkhan | 0 | 43,670,258,956 | 100% | ||
mestyz | 0 | 60,778,538 | 100% |
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.
post_id | 2,203,349 |
---|---|
author | smooth |
permlink | re-pfunk-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170320t183457359z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | {} |
created | 2017-03-20 23:40:36 |
last_update | 2017-03-20 23:40:36 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
net_rshares | 499,565,440,004 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.256 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.085 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 273 |
author_reputation | 119,002,354,889,508 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
noagenda | 0 | 499,565,440,004 | 100% |
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.
post_id | 2,204,793 |
---|---|
author | liberosist |
permlink | re-pfunk-re-liberosist-re-steemitblog-patience-with-the-hardfork-there-must-be-consensus-20170321t034458762z |
category | hardfork-17 |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["hardfork-17"]}" |
created | 2017-03-21 03:45:09 |
last_update | 2017-03-21 03:45:09 |
depth | 3 |
children | 0 |
net_rshares | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-04-20 18:59:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 590 |
author_reputation | 128,495,787,068,198 |
root_title | "Patience with the Hardfork - There Must Be Consensus" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |