This seems like a step in the right direction. However, and I realize this might ruffle some feathers, how come it's coming from Steemit?
What I mean is, this is a Steem blockchain change. It's not a Steemit platform change, right? This is the Steemit blog account. This post is about the Steem blockchain.
Wasn't this separation supposed to be a major factor in pushing the blockchain forward? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the two remain one, for all practical purposes. Wouldn't it take Steem leaps further to get more folks involved with the blockchain through a decentralized process rather than continuing on this same course? Then these decisions would be promoted by a core set of developers focused on the blockchain rather than a group who's in charge of the Steemit UI and marketing.
We're ready. Let's get more Steemboats in the water and decentralize this baby!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Now that steemd is open source, if the witnesses and major stakeholders want to take the network in another direction, they have a viable means to do so.
I have no problem with Steemit Inc taking charge of development, it is only important that it be viable to fork away if their interests and policy diverge from the stakeholders. I don't see that happening for some time.
The problem is more related to them painting a picture of separation and the ability to integrate via API and not following through well. The separation that was discussed in the road map has not materialized. That's fine. We're still on the road. But it would be nice if it was a priority. The documentation for the API, from what I understand (not being a dev), does not deliver on the promises. Integrating another UI with full functionality remains elusive for devs.
The owners of steemit inc own the steem blockchain - yes, it is unhealthy. All HFs come from steemit inc and are voted on by the witnesses - the conflict of interest is blatant. Few seem to gather the relevance.
The decentralisation is going to APPEAR to happen via the decentralisation of ownership to multiple accounts which will cost 1 steem each to set up. With a flatter rewards calculation, the holding of SP in one account loses its commercial leverage. Hence, if you see the massive number of recent new accounts, you will soon see the delegation or transfer of power being decentralised but actually ... not decentralised at all.
Were there a one account per person protocol (normal in social media as we are each one person), we would have a better, healthier platform.
The fact that whales have been profiteering off other people's content has been exposed. The HFs seem to be seeking to disguise this sad truth and they seem intent on enjoying this usury for as long as they can.
The really sad thing is that were these paragons of virtue able to see that were there to be REAL decentralisation, their 100,000 SP, if reduced to say 30,000 SP with a concurrent influx of subscribers to say 50,000 from the current +/- 2,500, their account value would be about 5 times what it currently is (i.e. a 15 times multiple steem value).
When you wear blinkers and choose not to see, 'wilful ignorance' is the term which should be applied!
Steemit is sponsoring all of the development of the Steem Blockchain for the moment, and all development for the blockchain is coordinated by us in concert with the community and the growth and development plans for the Steem Platform (including its flagship application steemit.com).
Quite the opposite. Design by committee is doomed. I encourage you to review our roadmap: https://steem.io/2017roadmap.pdf
I've read it more than once... just the other day in fact. It points out that there will be greater separation between Steemit and Steem.
Releasing the license is a good step. It'll free up greater development.