A lot of your points are good but the point about witnesses blocking code changes is dead wrong. Many of the witnesses would like to see code changes but have been presented with none to even consider.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
A lot of your points are good but the point about witnesses blocking code changes is dead wrong. Many of the witnesses would like to see code changes but have been presented with none to even consider.
I mean, aren't some of them supposed to be coders?
Possibly, though it isn't necessarily a requirement of the role that witnesses personally develop and release code, assuming they can at least evaluate what is submitted and represent stakeholders in deciding whether to approve them or not. In theory, anyone can submit code and maybe witnesses approve it, maybe not.
In any case some are coders and have even written some modifications to the core blockchain code, but there is a lot more to it than the actual coding for code changes to reach the point where witnesses can consider approving it or not. The way the steem blockchain repo is run in practice, the entire process (meaning not only coding but planning, scheduling, reviewing, prioritizing, testing, etc.) is pretty much locked down by Steemit. It is very much unlike other open source projects I've been involved with and a lot more like a proprietary development process a large part of which seems to occur effectively behind closed doors (i.e. not on github, although the code itself is). For a long time it was explicitly stated that ideas for changes should not even be submitted to github and should only be discussed on steemit.com (which in my view is a horrifically bad UI for development discussion). Although that has been loosed up in theory, in practice, most if not all change or enhancement ideas that aren't on steemit's own (mostly internal) roadmap are still closed anyway.
In the case of condenser (the web UI that runs the steemit.com web site) there have been increasingly a few outside contributions accepted, and that is a positive development although I would still say that most of the process takes place within the context of just Steemit the company. Witnesses have little to nothing to do with the UI in any case.
In order for there to be real change where code changes includng consensus rule changes from other than Steemit are considered by witnesses would requires Steemit to revise its overall development effort to be based on open source methods where development and coding work can realistically come from outside the company and be considered through an inclusive process on equal footing, or alternately the repo would have to be forked, essentially "firing" steemit as its keeper. There has been some 'long term' discussion on the former happening, but only a tiny bit of actual motion.
Anyway, that was a bit of a diversion, but my point is that witnesses are in no way blocking changes, and in no way are whales voting in witnesses specifically for the purpose of blocking changes. It is simply not the case that the issue has even come up.
So in essence everyone is depending on Steemit Inc's large share of stake as a sort of proof that it and its process and roadmap are in the interest of shareholders in general, right? And at least at this point, things like golos aside, there isn't a large enough reason to fork and do things independent of them and compete against the main chain, probably because there is a very uncertain future with that as far as the ability to get any kind of traction going if the reset button is hit, and then issues with liquidity and getting the new coins onto any sorts of exchanges of note are just more variables that no one can be sure of.
I think that the wait and see approach most must be taking in being patient with Steemit is what works for now given the relatively high price compared to the rate of new developments coming out, if prices are high and you're already invested in this chain then the alternatives are much less attractive than if, say, steem were totally a near-dead coin and got delisted from upbit or binance etc. and there was more upside potential in starting something fresh.
I think that part of the reason for outside development being scarce other than the process being very much private and internally-driven as you've stated is the obvious issue that anyone submitting game-changing changes to steemit would probably rather take their ideas and skills to another upstart where they have a shot at getting a much larger share of stake in the project, considering that is how steemit itself was kind of arranged at its inception. And I don't think we'd get many open-source enthusiasts who code for ideals over money if this is how code changes are handled here with the past processes.
I can't speak for everyone. People likely have different views.
There have actually been several Steem forks, not just Golos. There are probably a number of reasons why none of them have really gained traction but I'd guess that the lack of dramatic success by Steem itself (at least in the terms that the cryptocurrency market cares about, which is mostly market cap) is a big one. If you fork a #30 coin, how many people will actually care? Yes there are issues with liquidity and such, but a lot of those are secondary to the primary issue of people caring enough to pay attention to a fork.
Hard to say. If you fork a #300 coin, do people care about that more or less than forking a #30 coin? And there have been and continue to be numerous "social-crypto" projects being launched. Again, I would say until someone shows at least one of them being a clear and dramatic success, interest overall will be muted.
Probably so. However, even modest improvements or incremental changes don't go anywhere. Steem/it does have a community and some in that community (including witnesses, but not only witnesses) are interested in contributing to the code. There just isn't a mechanism for it.
You are correct. The process is hostile to open source involvement.