RE: The importance of the upcoming hardfork and how you can cast your vote!

[gtg]

I am one of those witnesses that are aware of some issues regarding this release, but I do not consider them as "grave". However, delaying HF a bit would not be a big deal if that is necessary for reaching a better consensus. Think of it as ordering a pineapple pizza. ;-)

Comments

[liondani]

exactly

[williambanks]

Nice post! I upvoted it. I think the more witnesses we can get to update and the more users we can get to switch over their votes, the faster we will reach consensus.

I think the real problem is we have numerous witnesses who have just gone asleep at the wheel. Waking them up and also letting the ones who aren't asleep but who are afraid to speak against the louder voices know that "hey this is a good thing for everybody. There's something in here for you, no matter what your plans are for steem". Is essential to making this consensus happen.

[jesta]

Judging by the massive amounts of conversations I participated in with about 15 of the 19 top witnesses, no one is asleep at the wheel and everyone chipped in the discussion.

There were two main sticking points that overwhelmingly caused some of us doubt:

• The comment rewards pool was the most controversial for a number of reasons. Some are concerned with the ratio used, some are concerned it may limit steem's utility for other types of content, some don't think it fits the KISS principals that HF17 was set out to address and is too complicated, and some may support it if the ratio was a witness parameter that could be adjusted. However, no one could stand out and explain exactly why it was a beneficial change that we should be making, so no one really threw their support behind it.
• The 7-day payout period was another highlighted issue. My take away from the discussion on this topic was that the 7-day period is likely alright, but the fact that they removed the abuse protection (at the end of a post's life cycle) was a sticking point. The way it is designed now would allow votes at the last minute of the post's payout cycle, and not increase the amount of time left before it paid out. This leaves a vulnerable opening that could be abused by whales voting during the last hours/minutes of a post, with no one really noticing, thus draining the rewards pool.

Now, whether or not you personally feel those are reasons to delay the other features, well that's up to you to decide. We asked for HF17 to include everything (including the awesome stuff you listed out above in your post) with these two features temporarily removed. We can then have a discussion about those two features, and may or may not support including them in a future release.

There's no malice or laziness in how we approached all of this. We all want what's best for steem, and while our opinions may differ, there's very likely always a compromise that can be reached. I personally am pretty proud at the hours of conversation and polling that happened, and how well the witnesses came together to discuss these issues.

[williambanks]

@jesta I can respect this point of view. Keep in mind that the purpose of this post is to let people know that if they want the changes from HF17 to go through, they need to vote witnesses that will support it.

I think the change to comment rewards and the change to a 7 day payout are wrong, but I'm willing to accept them as a concession to the other features that do make steem an attractive business proposition.

This isn't meant to be a name and shame for anyone running 0.16 and above. But it is there to highlight who is supporting what.

[teamsteem]

The comment reward pool could really be the best or worst thing. We don't know. It's true that making it a parameters could help us determine what are the impact of such a pool.

[ebryans]

I won the whale vote contest - watch out! Good things coming!