Hardforks are a highly technical process.
Oh C'mon give me a break! The only technical part is to have 20 witnesses all agreeing on getting a 50% haircut.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hardforks are a highly technical process.
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.