HF20 Update: Restoring Continuity
Hello Steemians, it’s been a long few days, but progress is being made and we wanted to provide you with the latest information on where things stand. We understand that people are very frustrated, and we want to assure you that we are working as fast as we can to return the blockchain to the expected level of usability. In this post, we will discuss the patches that we are planning to release tonight which will significantly improve the user experience on Steem, as well as our reasons for choosing this particular path.
Update: Steem v0.20.4 has now been released
Priorities
We have been reviewing issues and developing patches as fast as we can, while evaluating the optimal path forward. The choices we’ve made have been driven by three priorities. The first is continuity. Steem users must be able to continue using the blockchain as we transition to a system that ensures fair pricing of resources based on proportionate stake. The second priority is minimizing disruption for businesses and exchanges. The third is ensuring that we can continue to make incremental movement toward the sustainable pricing of operations.
Moving Forward
Based on our analysis, we believe the best path forward is to issue a series of patches tonight, the most significant of which will multiply the resource budgets by 10x. This should guarantee that users will be able to do around 10 times as many operations on the blockchain over the course of 5 days than they are able to now, although this could vary depending on the types of operations. Our #1 priority is continuity, and the root cause of the most glaring issues that users are facing is that the initial resource budgeting was far too limiting. Dramatically increasing the resource budgets is the fastest way to remove those limits and return users to the experiences they are accustomed to.
An added benefit of this path, as opposed to some of the other options we were considering, is that it would enable exchanges to get up and running as soon as possible. Because the RC plugin is non-consensus, any future updates to that system will likely not require replaying the blockchain, which means they would be able to maintain service throughout the process as we continue to make more updates.
Preserving Flexibility
At the same time, this solution leaves in place the RC system which is already providing us with valuable information about the real pricing of different operations. The strengths and benefits of the RC system remain too significant to risk losing. This path enables us to retain some of these advantages while restoring continuity for users. Due to the fact that many components of the RC system are non-consensus, we can continue to adjust the resource pool budgets, track trends, and adjust charges incrementally over time so that we can meet our third goal of moving us toward sustainable pricing of blockchain operations. This path grants us a degree of flexibility that we did not have with the previous bandwidth system.
What Happens Next
These patches will be going out later tonight, at which point we will immediately begin reindexing. That means within 24 hours witnesses can prepare to run the new code and deliver the improved user experience that Steemians want. It is ultimately up to the witnesses to decide whether the code is safe enough to use, however, one of the reasons we chose this particular path is due to the fact that simply multiplying the resource budgets by 10 is a simple fix, and with this simplicity, the code easy to audit. If they choose to adopt this change, user experience could begin improving as soon as tomorrow night. Other significant patches will be included that will address issues like accounts not having enough RCs upon creation and Steem Power delegation not immediately conferring mana. More details on these changes are included below.
We appreciate you all bearing with us through this challenging experience. No other community on Earth is trying to do what we are all trying to do together and it’s no mystery why: it clearly isn’t easy! Thank you all so much for your feedback and your patience.
Steem Blockchain Team
This is the draft for the 0.20.4 release notes.
Issues with fix included in patch 0.20.4:
- #2974 Parameters set too low, and many users are unable to transact
- The RC system constrained resources to too great of an extent
- We are adjusting parameters for minimal disruption
- #2968 Accounts at less than -100% RC cannot regenerate mana
- If an account was not able to get to positive RC within 5 days, it would not be able to do so at all.
- #2961 Powering up / delegating SP does not increase RC
- Bug: users powering up, were not able to vote/transact instantly
- Now, receiving SP gives an instant voting mana boost
- #2949 Voting power was not carried over properly at HF20
- Many had their voting power reset to near 0%
- No code change was made, but everyone's voting power will regenerate to normal levels within the next 3 days
- #2971 New accounts with 0 SP only have 3,000 RC
- This issue was a symptom of other issues that were addressed.
- #2942 New witness properties not returned from condenser_api
- The missing properties were added to the legacy API
- #2947 #2957 #2962 Condenser_api.get_accounts returning invalid voting_power values
- The compatibility layer for the old vote power API wasn't properly converting new mana to the older-style vote percent
- Caused irregular values to be displayed for user's current voting power, making it appear voting was buggier than it was
- Edge cases have been fixed, now fully compatible with old system
- #2953 Some accounts had negative resource credits at hardfork time
- Anyone with an active account prior to the hardfork had accumulated debt in the new calculations, unbeknownst to them.
- We reset negative value account to 0, so they can transact.
- #2958 Small accounts did not receive full mana upon the transition.
- All accounts supposed to have a minimum usable amount of RC
- This amount was calculated incorrectly, causing insufficient RC
- Now, most accounts will have a minimum 6M RC instead of 3,000 RC
- #2965 Require broadcasting nodes to have RC plugin enabled
- Using a non-standard configuration for broadcasting nodes could result in transactions not being rejected early
- To prevent configuration mistakes, RC calculations are enabled by default for any node which broadcasts transactions to the network
For details on all changes in HF20 :
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/steem-velocity-hardfork-hardfork-20
Reading these comments, I realize I was mistaken when I left my first comment last night. I was under the impression that new accounts got 15SP to start and that the 10x coming tonight was going to be applied equally to every account. Turns out both are incorrect.
New accounts apparently get only 5SP now. And the 10x is going to the entire RC pool, not equally to each account. Now I don't know how that distribution is going to be decided, but how everything else has been decided suggests that the more you have, the more you'll get.
Well that's just backwards. Right now I can leave 100+ comments/post per day. No way I'm using all that, so making it 1,000+ for me isn't helping anyone.
Meanwhile, a new user genuinely working to build relationships on here and contribute valuable content to the platform may not even get 10x, and even if they did, that would only mean their being able to comment or post about once per day.
Come on. Let's just skip this 10x and go straight to 100x. Then the team can look at usage and adjust from there. It's absurd to make people wait... how much longer?.... before normal usage can resume so that you can even begin collecting meaningful data. Please address this now.
On a separate but related point, why are we equating being new with being a spammer? Why are we trying to fight spam in a way that penalizes new people?
I completely understand the need for using RCs to track resource usage, and giving individuals and the devs accurate feedback on system utilization by various actions. I totally get why that is necessary for SMTs to work in the next fork.
But don't you think you should start by giving people enough RCs for a normal human to function on here when they first start out?
Don't you think the method for preventing spam should not resemble a method for preventing usage by new users?
I was positing this months ago, before UA scores came about, and I see it even more now. I knew that the way people were talking about fighting spam would hurt new users. And then I suggested another dimension for being a real person other than amount of SP held, which was contribution to the platform.
I was unable to make the logistics work, but then came the whole UA score functionality, which has been doing a banging job of figuring out who is contributing more or less to the platform. Why not have that be what determines how many RCs someone starts each 5 day period with?
Let's stop equating having more money with having more value to this platform.
Through the greatest pain comes the greatest growth. But not if the pain is too much to bear. Then all hope is lost.
I totally agree with your suggestion of 100x and then adjust. If the goal and indeed requirement for growth is for people to comment, reply, upvote, and post, then they must be allowed to do this. I don't know enough about the technical requirements here, but I do know people. If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death.
Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day. I personally find it very frustrating being limited to only 10 votes on certain days when there is a lot of good content sliding in between the spam. This is a requirement for the system to grow, we must allow the minnows to interact. Isn't that what has caused the most outrage during this fork? It has been the inability of the general user to interact. Why not implement the "simple" fix as others have called it at 100x, let folks interact, let the userbase grow to support it? If the system cannot handle 100x then maybe 50x, but 10x is far too low and will not solve the problem, only irritate folks more that yet another promise of usability has been violated.
Let's move forward and keep improving this platform!
"If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death."
"If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death."
"If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death."
"If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death."
i would add that even telling people how much they are allowed to comment is a terrible system, one that it is inhumane. But if we must, i would say that 50 comments per day is an absolute must. Anything less than that will kill this platform.
"Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day"
What about implementing some WEEKLY votes/curation instead of daily? Regular folks love to post some days and the rest of the days work hard and don't have the time to social media.
IMHO
Exactly. Why frustrate people longer when 10x isn't going to do anything for anyone who actually needs it. And I also want people leaving lots of comments, because that's how you grow. The spammers need to leave 100+ comments per day, but a real person can't. That's where the cutoff should be set.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness...Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
This. Lots of this.
I don't think this is a necessary priority. In fact, I don't think it should be the implementation of RC at all. Rather than linear scaling, why not diminishing RC returns or a baseline level of interaction? For an example of how the former would work, perhaps, someone with 5 SP should be able to make 50 comments a day. Someone with one hundred 75, two hundred SP = 100 comments, 400SP=125 and so on. There's still an incentive to increase STEEM holdings because of voting power and/or some interaction bonus, but you give smaller stakeholders the capacity to actually interact only at the expense of large holders being able to do more than anyone needs to do.
Alternatively, give everyone a baseline RC budget of enough for 50 comments a day and scale linearly from there. That's probably simpler. And I know that the folks running the platform think the market can solve all problems, but it's so clear that it can't. We see free market capitalism failing to create livable circumstances for so many people around the world and cycles of poverty becoming inescapable by means of market forces. Why should we believe that an internal RC market will provide the means by which a feasible system will be born? It's great that it provides data, and that can help developers direct software implementations, but it doesn't work for everyday users, I don't think.
If you read my examples and think, "that won't work, he doesn't understand," Fine, but please don't dismiss the sentiment, which is that "fair market" doesn't work for the majority of users, especially not new users.
I agree with your way of seeing how RCs would work better. It's not the issue of counting them as they are spent, which is what's really needed for HF21. That can stay. It's the issue of how they're meted out in the first place.
Here's the thing I've come to: It isn't that they don't understand that these various methods are feasible for making this platform more hospitable to low SP people or new users unready to buy STEEM right off the bat. It's that they don't care about that.
This HF was a success to them because... well... it was a success for everything they care about.
Many years ago a Buddhist teacher responded to my criticisms of things I'd newly discovered about the community of teachers by saying, "The path of awakening is the path of disillusionment. You have to let go of all your illusions, especially your illusions about [buddhism]." Well I've been applying that to everything ever since.
In this case, the time has come for us to let go of our illusions about what this platform means to the company that created it, and realize that it's not what it means to us. The question then becomes, well how do you personally relate to that? That's a question each of us has to answer for ourselves.
Yes most definitely the free market does not work, except in limited circumstances, for instance when it's new and immature, not yet saturated. As it ages the benefits for middle and lower income brackets diminish, as money migrates to the top, and monopolies become the norm. It's a positive feedback loop impossible to break without outside interference. Same for any closed system, just human nature.
can you explain in very simple terms, how to upload this HF20 patch? Thank you for reading my message
I think you meant to put this question at the top level, not under my comment. At least, I'm not one of the witnesses, and only the witnesses had to do anything with the patch.
The rest of us are just benefiting from their having done it already. You should experience its effects automatically now.
This is incorrect. New users are delegated 15 SP, not 5. This should be more than enough for them to interact and get started. I believe this is going to change the culture of Steem to be that new users should be going for quality, not quantity. As they prove themselves they will gain more influence and be able to interact more. All in all, it's going to drastically reduce the bots and spam around Steem - which has been one of the number one complaints on the network.
I wrote a blog post about it here if you want to read more about my opinion.
They used to get 15SP, but a number of folks on discord have made it clear they got only 5SP.
@dailyopinion primarily bots that attempt to police the platform like @steemcleaners. Not only are they completely dishonest, but they fail to realize that decentralization or even separation from the mainstream social bullshit has the initial foundation of NOT wanting to be policed.
Let the community decide the content they would like to see! These idiots develop cartels using delegated Steem and attempt to impose their authoritarian power over minnows, which definitely keeps the platform from growing.
Case-in-point: They use robot software to attempt finding content dupes across the net without ever considering who the main content dev was. Posting earlier on the net does not mean that you originated the content. Especially in cases of purposeful syndication or curation!
Nice words and thanks for the help! :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I wish there was a way to delegate my RC to those that need it without delegating my SP. I generated it, I should be able to delegate it.
Agreed. Delegating RC would be a great feature, which could also allow for big projects like Steemmoners to delegate enough RC to their sign-ups to get them to be able to play the game without any problems.
Delegating RC... will only serve to enrich those with the biggest accounts and will only manage to increase the inequality on the platform.
There will be. See a post by @ned around two months ago, “Steem’s secret to success” or something along those lines.
The post was very short and rather cryptic but explains a lot now. Those who follow(ed) EOS may also immediately have understood the actual meaning of that post.
That was the content of that post. Make it delegated RC and there you have a rental market soon to come. This will effectively allow SMTs to enter at a much lower cost than when they would have to invest in STEEM and power up.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
It’s interesting that you decide to mention something like this after you already dropped such a massive hard fork on everyone. It is exactly this kind of post hoc pretense of responsibility that irritates a lot of witnesses.
If they choose...??? Seriously? You drop a buggy fork (with major problems you knew about), ask for adoption, insinst on no rollback to bandwidth, then pretend that these patches are somehow optional while basic user activity is still throttled?
And rightfully so. Testing known buggy code on production shouldn’t happen.
We’ll hopefully get this fixed. After that, I think it’s time for STINC to step aside as the lead dev team for this blockchain. At this point, SMTs are a no-go. I’m not even going to entertain that insane proposal from your team, given the many mistakes and complete lack of foresight we’ve all witnessed since last year.
Thank you @ats-david.
Some of us have been doing damage control for the last few days, for a group of multi-millionaires who can't seem to be bothered. Personally, I'm over it. Steem is a viable blockchain but Steemit can burn to the ground for all I care.
I notice @ned's mana and RC are both at 100% though. Which begs quite a few questions ...
@ats-david yup
oh and as for top 20 Witnesses offering 'discount' delegation SP to POWER UP is a conflict of interest AT BEST
there seems to be zero ethical compass and when you tout you are a leader then you lead...you APOLOGIZE and you sympathize with those on here like vets and such who needed this money , people bitch about fiat and run to puppets, people who care less if they give millions to hoe bags who dance real pretty and love gourmet food then yank it and fuck it up for communities already established to have been doing good
whatever
This is a trying time, a time where we need champions like you. People's Champions. I truly hope your shining example of speaking up resonates with this community, a decentralized community of powerful, free thinkers who won't have the wool pulled over their eyes. (I hope I have enough RP or mana or whatever other nonsense needed to post this comment!)
aggrandizing for us plebs
That's a good point, they should definitely test the code in a non-production environment first. Does Steem have a test net?
I began mentioning it much more strongly prior to the hardfork when some Witnesses began admitting they hadn’t read the release notes and some top 20 Witnesses only began testing two days prior to the proposed HF. Ask Lukestokes or Reggaemuffin who began prompting Witnesses for their published standards and when.
Going forward speaking loudly to the definitions of the contiuents of Steem governance and their roles, especially going into SMTs and other innovation, is absolutely critical. Without stoic Gatekeeping from our Witnesses, the governance is weak. Without Gatekeepers holding devs accountable to Gatekeeper’s standards, or more importantly, without standards, deliverables are under tested. Without Stakeholders of users and businesses holding Gatekeepers accountable, Gates remain low. We need to raise the Stakeholders voice and raise the Gates and raise the demands for optimal approach to development, which should show itself in aggregate of Witnesses’ standards. Personally as a stakeholder I want from this governance a robust combination of conservative process with consistent drive toward innovative development. There are certainly marked improvements to make here in the short term.
Posted from my iPhone. Please excuse omissions, errors or grammatical mistakes.
I wrote you a nice letter Ned Scott. A way to solve all these problems and usher us into a new golden age. You ignored my letter and now this thread resembles the french revolution.
Oh what the hell I will burn some resource credits linking to this brilliant piece right here by another deserving witness @paulag who will never have the chance to get to top 20 because she does not have the vote from freedom and that all but seals her fate to live outside the top 20 no matter what she does. Please help us @ned . This is a way to fix steemit. Also how many RC does it take to eit because I had to do a new comment because it was saying I did not have enough credits to edit a comment but I can make a whole new one.
Disappears for months, Shows up to point fingers at everyone but the team that has millions of dollars to spend on resources which are the "gatekeepers". Would flag for self aggrandizement, but I don't want to consume my precious RC on it and I can't afford it anyway, because I was using my power to help users all morning on other threads. Trying to retain some of them before this place goes completely ghost town over crap decisions and poor execution by the aristocracy, that fails at meritocracy.
I want to congratulate you @ned . People wouldn't comment or even waste their time if they didn't care. There have been some really cool things the STEEM blockchain has accomplished and it has been an interesting experiment.
What has been created here is hard to replicate. It is far too expensive and requires too much funding for people to easily build their own platforms to "fix" the issues here. If it was easy everyone would do it.
That all being said the platform has frustrated us for over two years. It doesn't really improve it just changes. The same scenarios continue to exist that the distribution was an absolute joke and for the most part the witness situation is a complete joke and always has been.
This blockchain has probably made about 50 people more successful than they were before. Everyone else has been stuck in a frustrating time trap.
Congratulations @ned ..... you won
Dear Ned, Everyone has lost. If there was a time to apologize and show a tiny bit of empathy now would be it. Upvoting for aggrandizement of Resource Credits Depletion Action.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Hi, @ned, I don't know if you're reading these or not, a lot of people have some pretty hostile responses here and while I feel them I couldn't blame you for feeling like this was going nowhere. However, I have a suggestion for addressing some of these issues, and I hope you'll consider it.
Part of the problem here is that witness rewards aren't tied into testing, code review, and so on. And I believe that they shouldn't be - there are different skillsets required for being a good dev and a good witness. But that means that sufficient testing of the hardforks is unrewarded, which is why no one was doing it.
I propose that we set up a Utopian-like system, supported with SP from Steemit Inc. and the top witnesses, specifically for Steem blockchain development. New code, code review, unit testing, bug reports, testnet experiences, and so on could all be done publicly through posts and rewarded through votes, so that instead of every witness having to do a private review of code that is scattered through github, there would be a reviewable public record of the testing that was being done, and more importantly, everyone could contribute to it. This would provide the incentive for more extensive testing that the current system is lacking without putting additional burden on witnesses, or requiring that any dev who wants to be compensated for that work also run a witness.
This would provide the witnesses with a collection of data they could more easily review, and expertise from a larger group of people reviewing the actual code and supplying their expertise, before making their decision to accept an update. It would also put their information-state on a par with the rest of the community's, so we would not be assuming that the job was being done in the background.
And the true shame of it all is that we as steemians can do nothing about the witness situation. As we all know @freedom is a mega account and has allmost all the top 20 witnesses propped up there with his vote. Hell even @aggroed wrote an article about it.
https://steemit.com/freedom/@aggroed/the-twelve-million-dollar-miner-who-is-freedom
maybe in the next hard fork we could address that account so that the rest of us actually have any power to choose witnesses that want to do the job, not just sit in a top 20 spot and line their pockets. If what you say is true about them only testing 2 days ahead of time that is just shamefull and they should be fired by the people. I guess the obvious answer would be "well it is his stake and he can do as he wishes, If you don't like it doomsday then stop being a peasant." As long as witnesses are complacent because they have the @freedom vote in their back pocket we are all stuck with them no matter how hard we try to leverage them out.
At your desk, Ned
@ned I'm shaking my head
Lemme get this straight, you need rigorous gatekeeping witnesses to stop the shitty code changes, yet there are sweet fanny Adams that understand the code in its entirety
Inherently you are outsourcing code QA to people that are paid for their services by the output of that code.
And that looks like a serious conflict of interest.
Oh and vote for my witness if you want change 😂
This is great that you read one comment. I hope you read the rest. If you want to make improvements, then it is imperative.
Also I love that you know that you are a stakeholder. I hope you also recognize that your customers on Steemit are stakeholders too. And if you do, then as the leader of this organization it is your duty to address the issues many of the Steemit users will be facing with this new implementation.
@ned If you want real change it is simple give every steemian equal voting power on such important matters such as witness votes ect. like this people who actually earn the trust of the users get the power not some entitled sponsored idiots who could not bother to test or read ...
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I am excited to see where 1 million accounts takes us. I remember when you were on TV talking about Steem at 100,000 users. Keep on @ned you are doing great! I am looking forward to SMTs
Welp, I tell ya, @ned... that is why I am working on this thing here that I call the "Dolphin Council" and we are working on making the role "Witness" equivalent and now that I am both, it is morphing into a combination council. I do not pretend to be the "leader" of this new group, but at this time I am guiding the charter of it. Your "gatekeepers" speech above gives me some great ideas for the Council. Thanks.
As you may have noticed, Many or Most of the new witnesses are mid-level folks, which is a good deal. New Blood, fresh ideas, different perspectives. The "DC" hopes to mirror this new(er) Steem Demographic and "inject" these traits into the Blockchain.
Could not have said it better myself, but that sums up a lot of my feelings about the "State Of Steem"...
You seems to think that STINC blocking the way by being the lead dev team.
You might want to find replacements before firing someone.
I’m currently reviewing résumés. :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward.Future Is History"
Perhaps new (fresh accounts) - in particular ones transacting with dApps such as Steem Monsters, dtube, VIMM, etc get a pooled bonus to enjoy those apps... sensibly (ie accounts with x steem power, zero flags, and transactions of a certain json) get discounted "transactions" in terms of resource credits that tapers away as their account grows.
Surely every account at dolphin / orca / whale status isn't expected to use their entire allocation of Resource Credits in a single day? Does this not create equilibrium? I could never imagine using my entire bandwidth allocation pre HF20.
I may be missing the whole point, but the true cost of not-transacting on chain at all for these new and on boarding accounts is far greater than the "true cost" of a transaction in terms of blockchain computational cost.
I know that this update lays the foundation for SMTs, and I might be missing something about how RC interact with this, but please, think of the minnows!
They're our future!
@holoz0r, let me add to your submission that Planktons and minnows are users who keep the #steemit platform engaging. Their quest for growth is what spurs frequent posts and comments against what the whales do.
Sadly, this RC computation has totally denied most planktons and minnows of this feeling as they cannot post nor comment. This should be revisited.
Moreover, the RC computation do not show estimates for posts. Estimates are only pooled for comments, voting and poweups. Personally had 19 comment pools. After I successfully made one post, the whole thing drained to 6, implying I cannot post again in the mean time.
@steemitblog, help us by giving estimates of posts or amount of RCs needed for posts so we can plan well.
Thank you for the update though we expect more frequent updates in 6 hour intervals..
This is a primary concern for our group as well. Many of the people who participate in our #informationwar group are under 100 SP, brand new people obviously having the default amount upon account creation.
The best way for people to get more followers and interact with people is to make dozens of comments daily on posts they find interesting. We will see a hampering of growth in tota new accounts are not abl to make many comments daily. Reddit for example, you might make 30 to 40 comments there daily pretty easily, theres so many subreddits you can follow and so many things to comment on. Steem is growing and this will be the case here as well. When users find they can't make a reasonable amount of comments they will likely not want to be here.
Are we going to have the ability to sell our excess Resource Credits and or loan excess Resource Credits? As was stated, people with a few thousand SP can basically make hundreds of comments per day and likely never will use all of their bandwidth(resource credits).
I would really like the ability for the InformationWar account to be able to give out our excess Resource Credits, and or have an option that delegates a % of our Resource Credits out to someone else.
A few ways I think it could work, first one being that you do the same as Steemauto upvoting services do it. Give us the ability to set a threshhold/limit to how much % the IW account can give out in a day. So if we have 10 people signed up under us, and we allocated in total 10% of our resource credits out, and we allow each user to only take one full percentage point per day. Very similar to how you setup curation trail upvote following on Steem auto, preset limits based in %.
Or give us the option to give someone the Resource Credit itself, so we could transfer it like we transfer Steem or SBD from account to account.
There should be so much excess Resource Credits that whales will be fighting eachother for who can price it lower, so the price of such a thing shouldn't be very high.
I welcome all criticism/feedback to this suggestion of course.
Thanks, @truthforce
There are third party tools (such as steem.supply) which will show an estimate of posts/ votes/ transactions available, however, I am not certain of their mathematical accuracy; given the instability we're all going through right now.
Once the numbers stabilise, I'm sure we'll see the true potential of this "Velocity" Hard Fork come to be.
I hope
What does this mean?
It says i have RC Status 69.71 %|1,269,526,091,571 RC. ... Is this good?
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
In truth the very real danger is that there will be no future dolphins or whales, which is kind of the truth about mankind. When we have children, the parents have to sink a large portion of the available resources into the health and well being of that new Sovereign Autonomous Life. That investment is the principal authority of the investor or in life the parent. Everyone involved has that principal investment to some degree. Witnesses are a part of everyone and I am sure looking out for there own vested interest. In truth if you don't think that the witnesses vested interest is the same as your own, than why are you here?
If you do believe that the Witnesses vested interest and yours is close enough to be there no never mind, than pay the Witnesses the past performance we have enjoyed. Have faith in the only proper use of faith there is. Just as you know the Sun will come up, because it has in the past. So should you know that those who are working to make our experiences the best that it can be, are. Later we can pick it all apart and see how we can make it better.
For now I say let the drivers drive, and see if we are not where they said we would be?
I did a SteemMonster gift card to see the tax and it was zero!
If you consider that the dApps will be able to get discounted account tokens and they will likely have RC, they can potentially onboard and delegate to their new users directly in the future. And as you have rightly noticed, you aren't likely to ever need all of your RC so essentially there is the potential to have a bandwidth market where those same dApps or users perhaps can rent lines in various ways, just like Steem delegations.
Seeing what the true costs are however is an important thing to do before concessions can be made. Up until this point, no one knew what was costing what where which meant many accounts were interacting in a type of debt structure without knowing it. Now it seems that it is possible to better allocate resources to where they are needed as we can see where the needs actually are. In time, this should be able to be continuously fine tuned and tweaked to support onboarding and the support of onboards as it will be clear what is required to do so.
The current situation although uncomfortable is likely relatively short-lived but could bring a lot more opportunity as it empowers the Dapps to better serve their users which means, higher decentralization and distribution.
i hope you right tarazkp
Yes. This is EXACTLY where I'm at. Those minnows are gunna bail.
They already have. No one forgets the feeling of “You can only comment 1 time per day.” This is an epic fail on a level I didn’t even think possible.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Yeah in theory, it sounds great, but this could be open to abuse from bots. If you give too many RC's away to new accounts this could just lead to more SPAM. This is a fine balancing act for sure.
For now, the 'dApps' onboarding new users may need to delegate SP to ensure the new users can use their apps as intended.
Not ideal for sure, but could solve a problem or two.
In an ideal world dolphins and above should be able 'sponsor' or 'buddy up' with new users to share their RC credits. ie. You go fishing in the plankton pool and give someone or many people that you think have potential access to your RC credits. (Let's call it Delegated RC)
Just thinking out loud.
What is spam? Is my comment here spam?
its been a long time since the update and my best friend @steemingmark still cant post his blogs?? Please help!?
That’s just it. A patch is coming . If a patch doesn’t resolve it then we are all screwed.
Posted using Partiko iOS
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Can we donate money to new accounts in order to give them more resource credits (RC)? Can we have a test website where hard forks are tested at? Back to my first question, why not encourage individuals to help new users by vetting them, by sponsoring them in joining Steem, financially, instead of by simply expecting Steem to offer too much welfare, socialism, free money, themselves?
https://steemit.com/witness-update/@reggaemuffin/witness-statement-for-reggaemuffin-proposing-hardfork-adoption-requirements
We have also posted our new "Standards" for future HF's and testing
https://steemit.com/witness-update/@followbtcnews/with-hf20-now-live-it-s-time-for-a-look-at-the-process-a-statement-from-one-of-the-consensus-witnesses
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Getting not enough rc credits to power up needs to be fixed. If powering up gives more rc credits people will be more likely to power up. But if you can't power up when low on RC then it kind of lowers engagement. I do a lot of promoting for steemit give away a ton of steem swag and I can already see a difference in entries for the lastest item it was suppose to be in honor of the hf. The comments of those who I know love this platform is very telling. It is like us little people who work hard to grow the platform but don't have tens of thousands of dollars don't matter. I hope this will fix those issues. I love this platform but the last few days have sucked. Just being honest.
I agree. The comments are very telling. I say we wait it out and see how things balance over the next week or so. But if what I suspect is true, they've changed the model entirely from a "newbie centered" platform, to an "investor centered" platform.
I am hoping things stablize and I am seeing some positive signs my RC restored to 100%
The depth of failure is so immense, I didn’t think this was even possible.
Posted using Partiko iOS
@stellabelle I am in wait and see mode right now but I hope this gets fixed if low on credits people should be able to power up, I have to be very careful what I respond to, but this issue I hope the ones who can do something about it does cause this isn't right, so many of us has spent so many hours inside and outside the platform promoting it that just because we don't have lots of money to invest we don't matter as much. I know this was meant to cut down on spam, but this didn't work very well because it also punished those who add value to the platform, though I might not be the best content creator, I am original and promote the shit out of steemit. I have invested hundreds of dollars over the last year in steem swag merch to giveaway, I refuse to sell it and give it away in contests and giveaways paying for the shipping without requiring much at all, including not requiring an upvote to enter for the love of he platform. Yeah, I am a little salty, this should post as I haven't posted much today, but I keep getting errors when I shouldn't so who knows. I still love steemit and I hope all these issues gets resolved. But I won't be able to sustain these giveaways if this keeps up.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Sigue costando 91% de mi steem power votar? daba un voto y me quedaba con 17% ...
@steemitblog
What about the missing posts in the various channels (Trending, New, ..)??
Just one example:
I want you to make steemit reward as weku.
No matter what tge value of steem is, the rewards should be like weku. This will male more people engage at steemit.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"