The actions required to push through a hardfork, and fund a proposal system are fundamentally the same: getting enough steemians to agree that capital (in the form of Steem) should be committed to a specific purpose (proposals). An app that enables people to voluntarily commit funds to proposals they like, store that Steem in escrow until the goals have been met, and then transfers the funds to specified accounts is a good idea regardless. Basically it would be like kickstarter on Steem. This would be a much more dynamic and sustainable system that could adapt rapidly to changing circumstances. In fact, it could also be an insanely profitable business because as Steem has feeless transfers, the platform could undercut platforms like Indiegogo and Kickstarter dramatically. It is also achievable very quickly. I don't think anyone who believes that doing this through a hardfork understands how difficult and time consuming the hardfork process is. It also requires a TON of engineering bandwidth--bandwidth the Steemit Team certainly does not have. An app like the one I describe could be built in a month. So why not try that first? All of the people who think it's a great idea can fund it and seed it with capital right now. A hardfork will take 6 months to a year assuming you can get all the witnesses and Steem developers on board, which you probably can't because this is a major change to the cryptoeconomics of the protocol which would threaten to disrupt the entire system. I am simply proposing a solution that is achievable in contrast to one that will be time consuming and practically impossible to accomplish. Blockchains are not designed to be changed willy-nilly.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I see, ok - thanks for explaining. Is there a good link people can reference so that they can learn what's involved in a hard fork - so as to optimally make use of the process?
My pleasure. Hardforks are a highly technical process. They are done through github here: https://github.com/steemit/steem. The blockchain is intended solely to be a sustainable and decentralized database. It is not a viable place to look for solutions to specific problems non-engineers believe they see on sites like steemit.com. It's like wanting to change iOS because you want a feature on your phone. Applications solve problems, the operating system (in this case Steem) is designed to maximize the number of valuable applications that can be built on it. It is simply the wrong place to look. Limited use case features like this diminish the value of the blockchain, they don't enhance it. What I'm suggesting is an app potentially worth billions that could compete with kickstarter and indiegogo. The alternative is a proposal to throw a wrench in the cryptoeconomics we have spent the last 2 years perfecting.
Yes, I appreciate that hardforks typically are for the purpose of altering the mechanics of the blockchain. I am a system architect and engineer - but have not worked on blockchain technology first hand. As far as I gather, the only reason that the hardfork was mentioned in this post, was, I think - as a means for adjusting the witness payout percentage.
Oh C'mon give me a break! The only technical part is to have 20 witnesses all agreeing on getting a 50% haircut.
That's not true. There is a lot of coding and testing. The requirement for getting it right is extreme. The release and testing cycles are very significant and expensive.
I'm actually in favor of a budget system, but for it to happen realistically means it needs to go on a roadmap and get carefully designed and carefully implemented. That is likely years away, considering that team is already busy on things that are already on the roadmap for the next year at least.
All of these posts calling for this or that fast and radical change to the system are a waste of pixels IMO. That's simply never going to happen. It is sad to me (and my confidence in the content voting concept) that people continue to vote for them.
@andrarchy is right, there is a lot that can be done within the existing system. There's no reason, for example, that 10% of the reward pool couldn't be voted daily into a multisig account controled by several respected community members and allocated to budget items. That can happen in a week or two with some web development.
EXACTLY. If the large stakeholders think this is important enough for a hardfork, they'll the think it's important enough to implement WITHOUT a hardfork and voluntary funding.
Thank you, @smooth.
If this is the general consensus within steem developement team it is pretty worrying...I really hope it's not and it's just your personnal opinion
Do you think bots solving the problems is better? Because they are currently showing all the holes in the steem blockchain.
Of course this is just my personal opinion. In the end the only thing the devs look for are github pull requests and stakeholder/witness consensus.
Wait...are you saying that having the STEEM blockchain fund its own projects/growth aka being a true DAO is a limited use case or did I miss something?
That's like tipping, good luck with that!
That's very disappointing to hear, the reason I've sold all my BTC for STEEM was because I saw a team of developers that were very reactive and not afraid to take risks ( How many forks on steem again?) But you guys sound like bitcoin core now...this means the curation reward system is never gonna get fixed, time to reconsider my investment I guess.
Steem is able to iterate faster than any other blockchain, but that doesn't make it an easy thing. But these are just my personal views, everyone should of course evaluate the situation for themselves, push the proposals they are passionate about, submit pull requests and consult with the witnesses. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.