Wow that was just sad. Even we all vote for one we can only make him to be at 43th :) and I’ve read something about democrasy :)
Wow that was just sad. Even we all vote for one we can only make him to be at 43th :) and I’ve read something about democrasy :)
I know, but it was made this way...
It is in Beta, opened sourced and possible to change. That is why it is my feeling we need a voting block, not just more minnows voting.
This will be taken into account.
P.S. Imagine a block strong enough to make the code changes that the majority of users desire and offer it to the witnesses to vote upon; letting them know that if they vote it down they can expect a fork like BCH/BTC. The new fork would allow the users to keep their new-steem like BCH did. Where do you think the users would go? How do you think that would affect witness votes? Open Source allows the sky to be the limit of possibilities. The Emperor has no cloths.
That's great on paper.
But for now, with the vote weight being based on SP, it's almost (if not totally) impossible, as the top witnesses (and the top accounts in terms of SP) seem to be completely locked.
Just to be clear the meaning of that rave was to leave STINC behind in a real fork, not how STINC refers to forks. Like Bitcoin Cash left Bitcoin Core yet kept the same blockchain up until the split. Holders like myself had then equal amounts of BCH and BTC (and Bitcoin Gold for that matter). 😎
I'm not a fork specialist, so you might have to explain me a bit.
For forking, how many witnesses would you need ? If only one block in ten is getting validated by witnesses who made changes in the code, what would it do (before the "real" fork) ?
Or will the witnesses who forked be validating all blocks in the new blockchain (but that's after the fork) ?
How does the transition work exactly (between the witnesses changing code and the fork happening) ?
How about the apps ? Will Steemit, Busy, DTube, etc... will switch from one blockchain to the other or will you have to have the app builders in the "coup" too ?
The term 'fork' on this platform would simply be called a new version in most software development. The next fork will be fork 20. Any other software development still in Beta would probably call it version 0.20. Once out of Beta it would probably be 1.0. Now the normal use of 'fork' is a bit different.
Let's take the Bitcoin fork from August 2017 as an example. Satoshi left 5 people with control to the software repository. Steem's code is found on github for example. Such repositories are used for version control.
Bitcoin was reaching scalability problems due to the 1MB block size. Satoshi's white paper suggested increasing the block size at that point. It would not have fixed the problem permenently but it would have bought more time. Two of the 5 in charge of the repository wanted to increase the block size and three did not. The three wanted to use a corporate owned patent called the Lightning Network as a permenent solution. They could not come to an agreement so the two members decided to fork the code and increase the block size to 8MB. This became Bitcoin Cash and it has fixed the scalability issue for the time being.
The other three continued on with the original code and began integration with the Lightning Network. They are now known as Bitcoin Core. The Lightning Network now has their test network running and full operation should be expected in the near future.
When they went their seperate ways they both had exact copies of the same blockchain. So anyone who had Bitcoins on the Bitcoin Core blockchain had the same amount on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. They just needed to install the Bitcoin Cash wallet and copy a copy of their old wallet.dat file (which had all their keys) into the new wallet's installation.
So let's jump to what this would mean with the steem blockchain....
Should a group modify the existing steem code to have a gradual reward weighting, have witness votes released from witnesses that are inactive for more than three months and votes for witnesses unweighted for minnows and above and set up a site called new-steemit then everyone that is presently on steemit could come to new-steemit and find they have the same amount of new-steem as they had steem and all their keys for logging on etc. would be the same. One would not have to ask anything from the present witnesses. There would be some technical issues at the beginning. Twenty temporary witness nodes should be set up until witness voting began. Yet that transition should happen once 20 witnesses had 1 vote each.
Then the two blockchains would begin to veer away from one another and each become their own unique blockchain.
Hope that explains it. Let me know if something seemed confusing about the explaination. ✌
It's perfect. I had some notions of what a fork is, but you explained it really well.
OK, so that's not impossible at all, it's just the technical problem of having 20 nodes up and operational and the "human" problem of having enough persons that would migrate their "business" on the new-steem.
But nothing would restrain them from using the 2 steems at the same time if they wanted to cover their backs, so it's more a question of support and promotion of such an operation.
That's nice to know, even if, as you said, hopefully it need never come to that.
I also think that what you propose is the way to go (gradual weighting), stop the SP being the absolute center of the ecosystem (or at least partially diminish its importance - by taking the number of upvotes into account too (hybrid of SP and one-person-one-vote) for classic upvote, and for witness voting going to a full one-person-one-vote system), and if it's not done by the main steem, it's just a question of time before steem forks or dies. As you said, it's really exposed to competition.
P.S. Busy and all apps could work on the new version. It would be up to them, yet as most apps are open sourced you could have new-busy etc. if need be.