Outside of the comments section here, which can be a bit confusing and noninclusive, where can we find out which witnesses support these changes and which do not so we can vote accordingly?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Outside of the comments section here, which can be a bit confusing and noninclusive, where can we find out which witnesses support these changes and which do not so we can vote accordingly?
That's a good question. I do not support retroactively applying the new rules to behavior that occurred under the regime of previous defined rules.
I do support this change with no retroactivity.
In addition, I do not buy the argument that the code complexity increases as a factor of N^2. This is patently false about the nature of software development. My background is mathematics and computer science and have been developing mathematical and scientific software develop for 12 years. These applications are mainly in C/C++, FORTRAN for domain specific scientists that have user bases anywhere from 4 people (authors of a paper) to several thousand.
Anyway, when new rules are enforced, there will be no need to maintain the codebase for the previous rules. All that is needed is a proper way of identifying the functions that are called and used for the previous rules, and some if / then statements in the codebase to test whether or not we are past a block that uses one set of rules or not. In fact, these types of if / then statements already exist in the codebase with the previous hardforks! The previous versions are not continually maintained, only new code is!
I am uncertain about attempting to fix the 'bot problem' with a 30 minute window. Bots can easily change their timing scheme to vote immediately after that window has passed. Also, 30 minutes seems like a long time. I can read many articles and good posts in 5-10 minutes.
For what it is worth, I am not currently in the top 19.