You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: HF20 went (is going) really bad. Time to move our witness votes to the 21-45 witnesses?
Something clearly went horribly wrong with the testing. Incompetence, laziness, lack of communication or whatever. I am guessing just a complete lack of appreciation for the importance of rigorous testing. When so many changes are implemented, so many things can go wrong. I would expect the developers and witnesses to be aware of this.
From @reggaemuffin's post, I gathered that there was not even a test net that sufficiently mirrors the main net. So whatever testing was done could have been for nothing, ouch.
It definitely did not pass rigor testing when they mentioned a bug fix on an extreme use case ... then don't have a solution to a basic 99% of users won't be able to post ... I start doubting developers they should have based their testing on a new user standard not a max steem account.
Steemit INC is still foolishly racing toward SMTs. They aren't going to look back until they finally release HF21. At the same time, SMTs are pretty damn important, so it's hard to say that what they are doing is wrong. My guess is that Steem won't be a great blockchain until a year after SMTs come out and we've finally had a chance to calm down, document the API and work out all the bugs.
I can understand they want everything ready for the release of SMTs but this hardfork could have been split over a few hardforks. This way less things are likely to go wrong and testing will be easier. Resource credits mana looks sophisticated enough to have its own hardfork. Even though things have gone badly so far, I can see that the new mana system can improve user experience.