Moving on is fine, I still do not see how that is going to happen. Who is going to decide on the software for the fork? Who is going to develop the software for the fork? Who is going to decide what software is going to be used on the new chain when it comes time to do a hard fork? Who is going to promote the Chain. Who is going to advocate for the new chain? Part of the problem we are currently in is because no other entity than Steemit was allowed/able to offer up any changes to the software, it all had to go through steemit for some reason. How is the new fork going to decide what get updated/upgraded, fixed, or introduce new tools?
If when there is a real alternative to Steem Block Chain,I'll just continue to sit here, participate here, and wait for the total looming disaster that will be Tron's first hard fork of the chain. it wasn't the witnesses, it wasn't the investors, it wasn't the user, that decide what went to the witnesses for testing when a new hard fork was issued. It was steemit that issued the hard fork software. There was some minor input by user groups, investor groups and witness groups, but at the end of the day it was steemit that decided what went into a hard fork.
Who is going to decide when and how a hard fork is going to be run in this new sister chain? Who is going to write the software? Who is going to advocate for the change? Those need to be thought about and answered before I would make any move anywhere else.
Your assumption is that nobody else is capable of doing such things?
The SPS was coded by @blocktrades and his team. There are other coders submitting things on github all the time. The problem was, our centralized Steemit team had their own (flawed) vision for Steem.
We don’t have to follow them anymore.
My assumption was that so far all the HF's were run through a single group, that they decided what got in the fork software. That is the only assumption I have made. I know steempeak had plans building for a hard fork after the SMT hard fork went through, so no I did not assume that only they could code a hard fork, what I assumed was they were the ones in complete control over what got in to a hard fork.
In the new sister chain, who is going to decide what goes in the future hard forks that are needed, wanted or desired? Who is going to advocate for the changes? Who is going to implement it? I understand that it is the witnesses that currently do the testing of the hard forks for steem block chain, part of their "Job", is it still going to be part of the witness job in a future sister chain.
If/when there is a serious chat or talk about a sister chain, then these are things that are going to need to be known. Why trade one overlord for another?
Stakeholders?
Anyone who wants to.
Witnesses who run the code.
What overlord?
Stake holders, meaning a 1 vote with each account regardless of stake size? A person with 25 SP powered up equal to a person with 1,000,000 SP powered up? Stake holders unless it is a 1 to 1 thing, then what would be equal when it comes to governance? An SPS type system? I myself do not think it works about as well as a dPoll that is shut down after someone can say we won, as has happened before on steemit. The term stake holders holds so many different meanings and levels of power with it.
You have 7 changes that someone/group/or business would like to see happen. You can only do 4 of those changes at a time because of uncertainty how one change will/would effect one of the others. The reason for the resistance on the part of steemit devs about doing more than just an SMT Hard Fork, due to the uncertainty of how a decrees in the withdrawal time would work with it. Changing the withdrawal time frame according to them was not and is not an easy thing to do, it effects a lot of other parts of the software.
I am not trying to be argumentative about this, just trying to point out some things that really do need to be thought of.
Implementation: So the only people that can be witnesses are those that have the ability to formulate and implement code changes, no investors, no cheer leader types, just developer type witnesses? I really don't think that would work. From what I understand there is a lot more to implementing a software update, than there is to changing what file your node points to. I've watched in the steem-chat witness room some of the issues that pop up during the Hard Fork change overs, there are always issues at first.
These were but a few of the issue about a block chain. If any one can do it then they would not be so rare. If so then I guess there really is no reason to worry about Tron dev team upgrading the steem block chain.
But we as a community need to think of these things if we are going to be prepared for an eventual sister fork, so that we can at least have a small idea of what it will entail.
!ENGAGE 25
Reputation should carry a weight on voting, perhaps.
@ats-david you have received
25 ENGAGEfrom @bashadow!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
You might consider what is actually left of the team Steemit had assembled. @gerbino, @theoretical, @vandeberg, @andrarchy, @dantheman, @blocktrades (they may have only worked on prior code. Dunno.), and even @ned are no longer there. Is @sneak still there? Dunno.
Steemit now isn't the Steemit that ran the forks in the past.
Don't forget about @roadscape!
Sorry! I apologize to @roadscape. I am not a developer, and clearly have not paid sufficient attention to who has been doing what for Steem development.
Thanks!
And that is why I am somewhat concerned with a Tron Ran Hard Fork. Do they have the experience to work it, are they going to be in the Steem-chat witness room during the upgrade to assist those that are having issue with the software like steemit has done in the past. I watched the action/interaction during the last couple of hard forks, there were issues, the developers did help those witnesses that had issues/problems. I have not seen Tron's team in action, I hope they are capable, and can avoid a shutdown lock up of steem block chain when they do try their first Hard Fork.
I'm not a witness, programmer, developer, creator, or investor, I am only one of those outliers that enjoy using steem block chain, and would like for it to continue being available for a little while longer. I enjoy seeing parts of the world I'll never get to see through the eyes of just plain old everyday people not filtered through magazine editors or government editors.
!ENGAGE
I also very much am thrilled to gain the benefits of good thinking from good people unfiltered by overlords. I want that to keep on being available, and to be more available to more people every day.
Thanks!
there is lot of other people like those are active developers in Bitshares, EOS etc too. From a tech pov there is no shortage of experienced resources.
I know that to be true, although I'd be hard pressed to grasp who is competent at what. The specifics of software development are beyond my understanding, although I can follow logically if specifics are explained to me painfully slowly.
I know you have been here a long time, and serve as a witness. Do you have expertise coding? My assumption is that many witnesses do.
Software Engineering is actually about how things work and interact with people. I am sure most people know one part :)
Well, I lead a graphene blockchain developers at work & is working on cross chain technology for last 2+ years.
Not all the witnesses are programmers. @blocktrades is a veteran programmer, @anyx (is an academic as well), @netuoso are programmers. There could be other programmers as well. Most of the top witnesses like @gtg, @drakos etc posses excellent system administrator/security skills. I am not listing everyone but this is a list of people who are best of my knowledge closely associated with blockchain from a technology perspective. (This is not an exhaustive list)
Also, the skills for the Graphene (Bitshares/Steem/EOS) blockchain development is essentially C++ programming language and a library called BOOST. So in the above has people who work directly with C++ and BOOST libraries for more than 10 years.
The required skill setset would be - Approx 8 years of C++/BOOST expertise and a minimum 10 years of total software development expertise. (Obviously, this is my criteria and its highly subjective.). The total 10 years IMHO is highly required as that makes one humble as she will understand the silly issues associated with software development. Its not necessarily intelligence that matters but common sense and attention to things as opposed to focus.
Thanks a bunch for you highly substantive answer!