RE: [Vlog] Hardfork 20, Paper Witnesses and Appeal to Authority
Hi @nanzo-scoop
Firstly, I can't believe this post is over 4 hours old and not a single Witness has commented so far. Allow me, speaking for @steemcommunity to be the first.
As a lower ranked witness, I must admit that the importance of code review was lost on me. I do come from a development background, but can only read python and JavaScript at a basic level. I feel this must improve if I am to take the role more seriously.
I do wonder if the issue two weeks ago regarding a vote after 6.5 days not being understood by an older version, and thus forking the chain, could have been spotted with more eyes, or thinkers. Realistically, you wouldn't need to be a coder to asses 'rule changes' like this, and how they could impact a system in which some machines weren't aware of the 'new' functionality. 'We' all had plenty of time to ponder potential effects and both Steemit inc and Witnesses, have to take some responsibility here.
Being the largest stakeholders Steemit must resist the urge to railroad Witnesses into becoming patsy to their wishes
5 patches in 5 days following the fork meant code reviews would have been brisk, and it really was just a case of following orders and the actions of the top witnesses. This didn't sit well, but I felt we had no choice here but to follow the lead.
Recent events have been a wake up call for all of us, and I hope we can learn plenty to make the blockchain stronger in future.
Cheers
Asher
Thanks for your reply Asher. Your honesty is refreshing.
For me the issue was the degree of due diligence prior to the code being released into the Production Environment. Once issues are found, it is kind of all-hands to the pump to expedite fixes so I can understand if patches being hurried through.
While we all want to see improvements that had aid the growth of the platform, it is in my view more important that Steem doesn't become an oligarchy. If that means changes take longer to implement as a consequence than so be it.