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.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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?