You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Reflections: A Letter To Ned
The 20 witnesses didn't get involved to run full nodes. They got involved to sign blocks and propagate the blockchain. They used to get paid to do more than that, but they agreed to take a pay cut so that the blockchain could switch to a new inflation model.
To me, having dedicated block producers who guarantee propagation of the blockchain is what allows other revenue-based apps flourish. Apps like esteem, busy, steempeak, dtube, steemmonsters, utopian, and steemstem.
Changing the terms of witness involvement just because one front-end fell apart is not a good idea.
Would that be why they stopped reading the hf code? As it seems none of them read it before implementing hf20, from their own comments after.
Well, that’s part of what goes into propagating the blockchain. If they allow bugs due to apathy, the blockchain cannot propigate, and they can’t sign blocks on a chain that isn’t there, thus they’re failing to do their job as well.
That is exactly what I thought, cheers, have a great day.
It could also be looked at that they got involved to make the most for the least. I have been here long enough to read how Banfield paid to have his set and let it run without really doing a lot. I was here for the fork none of the witnesses seemed to know anything about. I guess I don't understand what is separating a top witness from the lower ones, other than the hefty amount they are paid in comparison to the lower ranked witnesses.
As I said in the post, if this "what is possible" demo is impossible to keep afloat, how much confidence will this instill in all those apps that we are told is the future?
We are told that we should power up, have faith and if we want more success here to put our effort, money and time in. Not sure why this philosophy shouldn't be applied to the Top Witnesses. I would like for them to witness more than the demise of the site, which will make the apps desired to come here say if they couldn't do it.
I appreciate your weighing in, as dedicated block production is important. But it will not be enough to make this chain separate from the rest and realize its potential. I can't see how anyone can view where we are at and think others who are coveted to come and build would be inspired by this point we find ourselves.
One might rightly assert that steemit.com is more important to Steem than bitcoin.com ever was to Bitcoin. Not only that, but bitcoin.com never really demoed the Bitcoin blockchain in any meaningful sense.
But here's what we can learn from the steemit.com demo: Have a revenue plan.
If you're going to provide a product or service that depends on the Steem blockchain and you can't show how you are (or will be) profitable, there's something wrong. Steemit, Inc. depended on asset growth. It didn't work. Can they recover? Hopefully.
The good news is that the blockchain is completely unaffected. Yes, tooling suffers. API access suffers. All that. It doesn't look good from a PR perspective. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the technology. In the wake, we're still seeing apps like Utopian ready to seek investors. You could say they depend on Steemit, Inc. to delegate, but hopefully that's temporary.
In the grand scheme, I think Steemit, Inc.'s current troubles are a blip.