Tbh, the only thing shutdown was @anyx's full node infrastructure, and that was because he couldn't afford to run it on two chains. I doubt the SPS covered all his costs, though I could be wrong. Now that he's not getting any funding, there's for sure no reason to run his node.
@netuoso: vessel wallet and @yabapmatt: steem keychain are both still running and the Korean community asked Justin Sun to shut down funding to them because they said they were not needed
@themarkymark's black list API is still running as far as I know
Don't base your assumptions on doubts, study the costs, analyze, get more information, َand finish with a conclusion that you can back up with data.
and just to be clear here, even though I agree on its importance, I am against that the first-mentioned proposal, my opinion alines with the opinion of smooth on this. We fed (metaphorically) him for months, then he took off suddenly even when he knew that several projects relied on his node. This is the kind of centralization that led me to oppose it.
You only mentioned a few names btw, there were more proposals on the funding line. Anyway, what do you think is the difference between continuous development/updates and just chill by keeping something on and get free money just because you changed one line of cost 6 months ago? You got the idea. Those people were paid to dedicate X time for Y task/result. If you publicly announce that you are going to shift all your focus to Hive or another thing, then so long. The Steem community doesn't need to pay for development under open source licenses just so other chains can benefit from it.
and yes we all requested the SPS to be secured, I wrote a post about it, and guess what, I am not Korean.
To end with. I didn't say that all of them didn't deserve funding, out of the bunch, only 2 deserved the support of the community.
What people don't get is that this surprise hard fork did more harm than anything; most people don't realise that this centralized decision severely hurt many dApps (including the one I work on), and still they push the narrative that if they told anyone Justin Sun would've taken over again.
We find it to be absolutely selfish to decide something without contacting dApp developers outside of the "circle" and I have been pushing this questioning on Hive's discord without success, the responces are always the same "we know it would hurt, it's not easy, you'll need to adapt bla bla bla". It's easy for them, they are sitting on top 20 consensus with some solid funding, they don't realise that dApps took years of developing trust in order to raise a stake to maintain users.
They completely said "fuck you" to anyone who was working on dApps, who invested time, money, who needed previsibility to plan now and to the future. Yet, they say it was a community consensus? Without the community even participating?
I'm with you @dr-frankenstein, I'm on Hive, but I already know that I won't be well accepted there if I keep on questioning the status quo. As for our dApp, we'll shut down our witness and step away from governance.
This basically sums up everything ---> "without contacting dApp developers outside of the "circle"
They always treated people as sheep and they will always continue to do so, why?
Because of the outstanding unconditional support that people are providing without a single instance of accountability, so they are used to do what the hell they want.
If you start to ask smart and daring questions, you will get a PR (usually a woman) who will repeat the same thing - aka ready to use BS - mechanically over and over again like a parrot without having the mind to look at the bigger picture. It doesn't matter to them if you spent years refining your product. If you don't have a pass to enter their magic little club, then no one will care if you took severe collateral damages.
Don't know what are you planning to do, but if you guys decide to go for 22.5 I could maybe vouch for more support for your witness. Some projects have already fired their nodes and it would be great to have TF in the line of defense.
I agree, nobody is forcing, but they never cared for the dApps either.
How about dApps that depend on reliability to work? What if I wanted to migrate but for my dApp it meant changing the whole source code? What if a big stake holder is put on check, left with his Steem bags and an uncertain bag of Hive? What if half of a dApp's user base wants to migrate and the other half doesn't?
dApps depend highly on TRUST and RELIABILITY, if we can't reach that no serious company will build anything on either blockchains. Either communities have a LOT to learn on business and professionalism, at this moment it's still very childish and controled by emotions.
"How about dApps that depend on reliability to work?" If you're referring to needing an api source, it would be best for the dApp to run their own api.
"What if I wanted to migrate but for my dApp it meant changing the whole source code?" Then your either migrating to an entirely different blockchain or your code is incredibly tangled and you need to rewrite it.
"What if a big stake holder is put on check, left with his Steem bags and an uncertain bag of Hive?" He didn't lose any Steem, he only gained Hive. Crypto is an investment, it fluctuates, and if you aren't prepared to lose then you shouldn't invest.
"What if half of a dApp's user base wants to migrate and the other half doesn't?"
Choose which half you want to support, or support both. That's kinda like asking "What if half our userbase wants to migrate to Ether?"
"dApps depend highly on TRUST and RELIABILITY, if we can't reach that no serious company will build anything on either blockchains. Either communities have a LOT to learn on business and professionalism, at this moment it's still very childish and controlled by emotions."
Crypto is based around trustless solutions. Going beyond that though, what businesses was your dApp dealing with?
Tbh, we all knew a fork was going to be made, it was only when it would happen.
I'm not talking about my dApp, I'm talking about any serious size dApp developer willing to build something either on Steem or Hive. It's absolutely impractical not having at least some previsibility, and with an emotional consensus governance that goes down the drain.
Crypto is an investment, it fluctuates, and if you aren't prepared to lose then you shouldn't invest.
Investing is all about prevision, risk exposure, risk/reward and is highly dependent on a good management - one may argue that management is up to the dApp's business plan and SMT, but we have to consider that right now the investment is measure in a powered up stake. Major changes led by emotional governance consensus destabilise all of this and is specially agravated once the investor needs to wait 13 weeks to get the fuck out.
He didn't lose any Steem, he only gained Hive.
He was left with a destabilized token, and gained an uncertain one. Works great for cripto especulators, not for real investors.
If we want both blockchains to grow we need to attract serious investors willing to build on either blockchains. We are talking about people who are not going to risk a couple million on a token led by childish people whose only hope is for the token to go magically up.
But I'm not the one to explain this, you should ask big developers why they don't bring their projects to Steem/Hive.
Yea, obviously.
Tbh, the only thing shutdown was @anyx's full node infrastructure, and that was because he couldn't afford to run it on two chains. I doubt the SPS covered all his costs, though I could be wrong. Now that he's not getting any funding, there's for sure no reason to run his node.
@netuoso: vessel wallet and @yabapmatt: steem keychain are both still running and the Korean community asked Justin Sun to shut down funding to them because they said they were not needed
@themarkymark's black list API is still running as far as I know
Don't base your assumptions on doubts, study the costs, analyze, get more information, َand finish with a conclusion that you can back up with data.
and just to be clear here, even though I agree on its importance, I am against that the first-mentioned proposal, my opinion alines with the opinion of smooth on this. We fed (metaphorically) him for months, then he took off suddenly even when he knew that several projects relied on his node. This is the kind of centralization that led me to oppose it.
You only mentioned a few names btw, there were more proposals on the funding line. Anyway, what do you think is the difference between continuous development/updates and just chill by keeping something on and get free money just because you changed one line of cost 6 months ago? You got the idea. Those people were paid to dedicate X time for Y task/result. If you publicly announce that you are going to shift all your focus to Hive or another thing, then so long. The Steem community doesn't need to pay for development under open source licenses just so other chains can benefit from it.
and yes we all requested the SPS to be secured, I wrote a post about it, and guess what, I am not Korean.
To end with. I didn't say that all of them didn't deserve funding, out of the bunch, only 2 deserved the support of the community.
Thank you,
What people don't get is that this surprise hard fork did more harm than anything; most people don't realise that this centralized decision severely hurt many dApps (including the one I work on), and still they push the narrative that if they told anyone Justin Sun would've taken over again.
We find it to be absolutely selfish to decide something without contacting dApp developers outside of the "circle" and I have been pushing this questioning on Hive's discord without success, the responces are always the same "we know it would hurt, it's not easy, you'll need to adapt bla bla bla". It's easy for them, they are sitting on top 20 consensus with some solid funding, they don't realise that dApps took years of developing trust in order to raise a stake to maintain users.
They completely said "fuck you" to anyone who was working on dApps, who invested time, money, who needed previsibility to plan now and to the future. Yet, they say it was a community consensus? Without the community even participating?
I'm with you @dr-frankenstein, I'm on Hive, but I already know that I won't be well accepted there if I keep on questioning the status quo. As for our dApp, we'll shut down our witness and step away from governance.
This basically sums up everything --->
"without contacting dApp developers outside of the "circle"They always treated people as sheep and they will always continue to do so, why?
Because of the outstanding unconditional support that people are providing without a single instance of accountability, so they are used to do what the hell they want.
If you start to ask smart and daring questions, you will get a PR (usually a woman) who will repeat the same thing - aka ready to use BS - mechanically over and over again like a parrot without having the mind to look at the bigger picture. It doesn't matter to them if you spent years refining your product. If you don't have a pass to enter their magic little club, then no one will care if you took severe collateral damages.
Don't know what are you planning to do, but if you guys decide to go for 22.5 I could maybe vouch for more support for your witness. Some projects have already fired their nodes and it would be great to have TF in the line of defense.
Goodluck guys,
Nobody is forcing you to move your dApp to Hive. You can continue to operate it on Steem just the same as always.
I agree, nobody is forcing, but they never cared for the dApps either.
How about dApps that depend on reliability to work? What if I wanted to migrate but for my dApp it meant changing the whole source code? What if a big stake holder is put on check, left with his Steem bags and an uncertain bag of Hive? What if half of a dApp's user base wants to migrate and the other half doesn't?
dApps depend highly on TRUST and RELIABILITY, if we can't reach that no serious company will build anything on either blockchains. Either communities have a LOT to learn on business and professionalism, at this moment it's still very childish and controled by emotions.
"How about dApps that depend on reliability to work?" If you're referring to needing an api source, it would be best for the dApp to run their own api.
"What if I wanted to migrate but for my dApp it meant changing the whole source code?" Then your either migrating to an entirely different blockchain or your code is incredibly tangled and you need to rewrite it.
"What if a big stake holder is put on check, left with his Steem bags and an uncertain bag of Hive?" He didn't lose any Steem, he only gained Hive. Crypto is an investment, it fluctuates, and if you aren't prepared to lose then you shouldn't invest.
"What if half of a dApp's user base wants to migrate and the other half doesn't?"
Choose which half you want to support, or support both. That's kinda like asking "What if half our userbase wants to migrate to Ether?"
"dApps depend highly on TRUST and RELIABILITY, if we can't reach that no serious company will build anything on either blockchains. Either communities have a LOT to learn on business and professionalism, at this moment it's still very childish and controlled by emotions."
Crypto is based around trustless solutions. Going beyond that though, what businesses was your dApp dealing with?
Tbh, we all knew a fork was going to be made, it was only when it would happen.
I'm not talking about my dApp, I'm talking about any serious size dApp developer willing to build something either on Steem or Hive. It's absolutely impractical not having at least some previsibility, and with an emotional consensus governance that goes down the drain.
Investing is all about prevision, risk exposure, risk/reward and is highly dependent on a good management - one may argue that management is up to the dApp's business plan and SMT, but we have to consider that right now the investment is measure in a powered up stake. Major changes led by emotional governance consensus destabilise all of this and is specially agravated once the investor needs to wait 13 weeks to get the fuck out.
He was left with a destabilized token, and gained an uncertain one. Works great for cripto especulators, not for real investors.
If we want both blockchains to grow we need to attract serious investors willing to build on either blockchains. We are talking about people who are not going to risk a couple million on a token led by childish people whose only hope is for the token to go magically up.
But I'm not the one to explain this, you should ask big developers why they don't bring their projects to Steem/Hive.