Update 07/01
The hard fork went through, 0.5 is only a memory now. Coming next (07/04): the decision between 0.8.2 and 0.8.3
@arhag created a post showing the differences for curation payouts (numbers are in MVESTS as seen at steemd.com/@accountname)
The two versions will split in 2 chains at the first payout, so we're in a very difficult situation. An official post by the Steemit team has been announced to come out today, keep your eyes open!
Original post 06/29:
Those that are not in slack may have missed the discussions completely, and even those who are present certainly had a hard time following everything.
This post is to update you all on the latest developments regarding the pending hard fork.
Witnesses are running 3 different versions at the moment. The hard fork is scheduled for Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:00:00 UTC (visit https://steemd.com/witnesses for details).
17 blocks have to be produced with a version after the scheduled time for it to become active, that means at least 15 of the top 19 witnesses (plus the runner up and the miner).
The different versions are:
0.5.x: the current version. none of the announced changes will happen if this version wins
0.8.2: contains all the announced changes except discussion rewards (because they may incentivize spam), with retroactive changes to curation rewards (see the two curves at https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/latest-curation-reward-solution).
0.8.3: like 0.8.2, but curation rewards are only changed after June 24th, for curations before that date payouts follow the old algorithm. Some of those getting more than with 0.8.2 because of that offered to donate parts of the difference to the ones receiving very low rewards if this version goes through.
It is a very hard decision, both routes will cause anger with someone. Choose your witnesses wisely!
No discussion rewards? Does that mean that nobody has earned or ever will earn any steem through participating in the discussions?
Excellent question, but no. Discussion will continue to be rewarded in the usual manner, based on upvotes given by community members who see the merits of specific comments.. The proposal that was widely disliked in 0.8.1 to shift 25% of the rewards from each post to comments below that post. This would likely encourage spammy comments trying to capture a portion of rewards on high-paying posts, even if those comments are not good enough to earn their own votes.
Aha. So the author of the post would have been rewarded if there was heavy discussions under the post, even if there were no upvotes on the replies? I can see that being a problem, yes.
Not exactly. The author of the replies could be heavily rewarded even with basically no upvotes on the replies. So any post with a lot of upvotes on the post would become a magnet for junk replies trying to grab a piece of the prize.
I'd assume it means that the rewards for commenting remain unchanged, i.e.
25% for parent author(s)
25% for the comment author
50% for voters
The Discussion Rewards related to a proposal give a percent of the OP curation rewards to commenters. This would have been in addition to the Comment Rewards above, I think.
There was a proposal to remove the 25% that goes to parent author(s), although I'm not sure of the status of that. I'll take closer stock after this hard fork and after 4th July, as life is too short.
Great thanks for that.
good jobs @pharesim
there must be
I've support all guys who run 8.2.
My rationale. Retroactive changes are never good at all. But if such changes are useful for the whole community and the whole community support it why not? I would not support witnesses who put self interest higher than community interests. In usual life we call that conflict of interests. If such conflicts are emerge the one should choose what is more important: to be witness or not to be.
My reasoning for rejecting the retroactive change is that, while perhaps well-intended, the specific changes are not particularly useful and certainly not essential. The stated goal was to flatten the curve to reward small stakeholders, but in reality the smallest stakeholders are still not rewarded (their rewards are negligible in either case), and the practical effect is to shift rewards the largest individual accounts to medium size accounts, which in some cases are owned by people with more total stake (just broken up into multiple accounts). The whole thing is a mess and the best thing to do is respect that people played by the rules, not attempt to micromanage some sort of retroactive redistribution which reassigns rewards based on rules that didn't exist when people were taking the actions they did, and make any desired adjustments on a forward-looking basis.
Some, perhaps all, of those of us who earned more under the existing rules have agreed to donate some of our earnings to help spread out more rewards to the smaller stakeholders. In my perspective that is not only less divisive than changing the rules after the fact, but helps support the good of the platform better than the 0.8.2 changes.
That is my point of view, and I respect that not all agree.
I agree with you that this sort of retroactive changes is in fact donation of big contributors to medium/small. But that is perfectly fine for a system we are trying to build. I would like to support your solution if it would exist and exist in executable code now.
I have followed some of your comments on this issue, and I really respect your opinion on the matter.
So I just wanted to ask you; what your opinion is on the comment rewards and the voting time limit?
Thanks
CG
I was not in favor of the comment rewards because of the spam issue. I mildly dislike the voting time limit, but I understood from Dan's explanation that it was necessary for technical reasons and perhaps a better solution can found later.
This is so confusing :-(
I thought the witnesses were voting on just two versions; have we scrapped the comment awards idea?
I'm losing the will; I just want people to be rewarded whenever they vote and to rewarded a little bit more for commenting.
sigh
I don't even understand that table you've linked, am I supposed to do something?
head hurts
CG
Interesting, so, this means I should vote for the witnesses using the version I like, right? But, what happens if the witness I voted for changes to a different version before the hardfork after I've voted for the witness? Does my vote matter or do only the votes of the ones with big steem power matter?
The witness can change the code they are running at any time, just as you can change your vote. IMO unless you plan to monitor every situation in real time, you are much better off voting for witnesses whose judgement you trust as that is something not likely to change from minute to minute. Of course you are free to vote however you like for whatever reason you like, that was just my opinion.
As far as whether your votes matter, all votes matter. There are many more people with smaller stake, so it adds up. Only by not participating do you guarantee that your vote doesn't matter at all.
Very good questions, I hope they get answered.
CG
There's no 0.8.3. There are 0.8.1
Nobody's running 0.8.3 right now.
0.8.1 isn't really a choice (it includes discussion rewards), the witness(es) running that version will up-/downgrade sooner or later.
Keep a close eye on the list, it's probably going to change a lot before the deadline!
Who has chosen what so far?
You can see all the details here
Sometimes I feel like we're in a reality show but no one is filming...
that's interesting info. Thanks
thanks for highlighting!
ТЫ ПРЫЩАВЫЙ АНАНИСТ ПОЛУЧАЙ ОТВЕТКУ
I am a downvote bot. Contact @pharesim at slack if you think I am misbehaving. Please help fighting spam! Upvote this post to strengthen the bot, downvote the parent post if it has positive upvotes.