RE: How does someone end up being a top Steem witness?
As a minnow my simple question is, Why don't everyone - community, witnesses and STEEM Inc take this opportunity to create a truly decentralized, community driven project by introducing a QA process which will be independent of the blockchain development ?
Projects like https://everipedia.org/ can be very easily be done on STEEM & there are numerous smaller projects (say https://dock.io/ ) which can be very easily implemented on STEEM as opposed to certain other PoW chains. STEEM has a very solid foundations and I think its possible to bring smart contracts & Turing Completeness to the system making it possible to become a general purpose blockchain which also supports content.
The Goals can be formulated from the witness testaments regarding HF20 written by the witnesses and numerous people.
A DAO can be created and this can do the following but not limited to it:
- help the developers to run the TESTNET
- ensure that the code has enough test coverage
- maintain the CI-CD pipeline
- generate transactions mimicing the MAIN-NET
- publish test reports on a periodic basis
- help to bring in bug bounties
- create a code of conduct
- Attempt to join various blockchain consortiums
- work with Academicians in research
A starting point can be using something like https://gitlab.com/SBCDAO/
There are numerous models like wikipedia, OpenStreetmap etc which was also able to financially succeed while being completely community driven.
This can be this project's and community's moment to glory.
Takers ?
You are a good thinker and for that reason you have my minnow witness vote.
I think you will get lots of support if you can help us get some of this started.
Our biggest obstacle right now is complete miss-micromanagement of the entire blockchain by a single person.
I can not prove it but it seems he controls who is a top witness and has the biggest stake of steem held by anyone. I am pretty sure he is @freedom @pumpkin and those two votes lock up most of the top 20. All the @steemit, @misterdelegation accounts are also controlled by him.
Right now the entire blockchain is at risk of destruction by one person.
Until we can remove that power from one individual, this project is more centralized than any fortune 500 company or the worst socialist government in the world.
Until that changes we are all at risk of our investments of our time and money just vanishing with the next "cool" idea he thinks of.
Thank you!
Now, responding to your points is very tricky as this will put me either in the down vote list of community or the business. Now, one thing we all (you, me, community, witnesses, Steem INC, investors) all have in common is the greater good for the blockchain. Its good for everyone to have a small pie of a billion dollar blockchain than a million dollar blockchain.
As the blockchain grows, the following happens
So, I would tend to think that maintaining a top 17 (not 20) is perhaps a normal thing in a DPOS + Stake scenario like ours to ensure that the chain is never split and the direction from the founding team is achieved. So during the initial token supply was formed, the split might have done in a very careful manner to make sure that the long term objectives are met.
Most important objective of the company obviously will be to protect the interest of the investors IMHO.
The developers have done an awesome job at churning out code at a rate rivaling chains with bigger net worth. So if a team and company can do the difficult part of writing some of the most complicated code ever written, I would trust STEEM Inc with their decisions on how the initial token supply was done. Even with the process flaws that we have been mentioning, there was no attempt to fork the chain - so I would say, the checks in place is working.
Community can help the community first by implementing collaborative tests, once we have more code coverage and experience I believe the company will notice and take PRs and contributions. I would personally trust 2 of the top developers (in terms of their code contribution to STEEMIT) over anyone else as "code never lies" and not disrupting the business decisions and direction, there will be definitely a way to add more value to all the stake holders.
Its a win - win for everyone.
You had my reply at the introduction of the idea in #witness-social and thank you for tagging me in the vetting of the idea. I saw your points later after my random nap, regarding hub vs lab, and they are well taken. I'm mostly ambivalent about the choice, only wanted to be able to tie to same usernames and stuff relating to live issues and PRs and things in linked reference, which, with a couple browser tabs and cut-n-paste links, can be done anyway, so there's that.
Thank you!
pointing out few more points also for clarity and for everyone's understanding.
The most obvious reason is the support for CI and CD + kubernetes which will fit into STEEM Inc's AWS based workflow. (I assumed it from various details not 100% sure). With Github in the long term it may be possible that microsoft may bring in their Teamfoundation (TFS) workflow but not sure about it. Its also possible to integrate Gitlab to Rocket chat via hooks ( https://rocket.chat/docs/administrator-guides/integrations/gitlab/ ) so that we will get a Github + Slack like experience. (Being said all this, my personal favorite among gitlab, github & phabricator is the last one)
Shameless plug, we don't need just a regular Wiki on blockchain like Everipedia on Steem, and we should be more creative than that; thus we have created https://hede.io Knowledge Sharing Dictionary to have Wikipedia's aim, Urban Dictionary's structure and Reddit's content. While few people can understand its benefits, we have had the passion for managing it and we believe that it is a key project for knowledge sharing and perfectly fits the Steem API.
I fully support this idea.
Thank you!
Excellent suggestion. When do we start?
Right now! Once the CI is there, may be others will also join ?
Few steps I can think of are :
When we stop blaming each other and see the actual hard work and dedication that this chain requires. Talks contribute a little on ground level and many of the suggestions don't even get attention. Sitting on the side line and blaming people in the mainstream wont going to work out. We all have to do this, we all have to understand this. @bobinson did a great job and he brings a lot of idea that can actually bring some value to this chain. Again the decision remains in the hand of top level.
I support this idea with all VIOLENCE :) Could be a game changer. How can I help?
Good suggestion Bobby. Without a proper QA process, we will not be able to mitigate similar issues in future from happening. I completely agree with your idea.
Posted using Partiko Android
followup : https://hackmd.io/s/ByT1BuG5m