HF20 Update: Restoring Continuity
Hello Steemians, it’s been a long few days, but progress is being made and we wanted to provide you with the latest information on where things stand. We understand that people are very frustrated, and we want to assure you that we are working as fast as we can to return the blockchain to the expected level of usability. In this post, we will discuss the patches that we are planning to release tonight which will significantly improve the user experience on Steem, as well as our reasons for choosing this particular path.
Update: Steem v0.20.4 has now been released
Priorities
We have been reviewing issues and developing patches as fast as we can, while evaluating the optimal path forward. The choices we’ve made have been driven by three priorities. The first is continuity. Steem users must be able to continue using the blockchain as we transition to a system that ensures fair pricing of resources based on proportionate stake. The second priority is minimizing disruption for businesses and exchanges. The third is ensuring that we can continue to make incremental movement toward the sustainable pricing of operations.
Moving Forward
Based on our analysis, we believe the best path forward is to issue a series of patches tonight, the most significant of which will multiply the resource budgets by 10x. This should guarantee that users will be able to do around 10 times as many operations on the blockchain over the course of 5 days than they are able to now, although this could vary depending on the types of operations. Our #1 priority is continuity, and the root cause of the most glaring issues that users are facing is that the initial resource budgeting was far too limiting. Dramatically increasing the resource budgets is the fastest way to remove those limits and return users to the experiences they are accustomed to.
An added benefit of this path, as opposed to some of the other options we were considering, is that it would enable exchanges to get up and running as soon as possible. Because the RC plugin is non-consensus, any future updates to that system will likely not require replaying the blockchain, which means they would be able to maintain service throughout the process as we continue to make more updates.
Preserving Flexibility
At the same time, this solution leaves in place the RC system which is already providing us with valuable information about the real pricing of different operations. The strengths and benefits of the RC system remain too significant to risk losing. This path enables us to retain some of these advantages while restoring continuity for users. Due to the fact that many components of the RC system are non-consensus, we can continue to adjust the resource pool budgets, track trends, and adjust charges incrementally over time so that we can meet our third goal of moving us toward sustainable pricing of blockchain operations. This path grants us a degree of flexibility that we did not have with the previous bandwidth system.
What Happens Next
These patches will be going out later tonight, at which point we will immediately begin reindexing. That means within 24 hours witnesses can prepare to run the new code and deliver the improved user experience that Steemians want. It is ultimately up to the witnesses to decide whether the code is safe enough to use, however, one of the reasons we chose this particular path is due to the fact that simply multiplying the resource budgets by 10 is a simple fix, and with this simplicity, the code easy to audit. If they choose to adopt this change, user experience could begin improving as soon as tomorrow night. Other significant patches will be included that will address issues like accounts not having enough RCs upon creation and Steem Power delegation not immediately conferring mana. More details on these changes are included below.
We appreciate you all bearing with us through this challenging experience. No other community on Earth is trying to do what we are all trying to do together and it’s no mystery why: it clearly isn’t easy! Thank you all so much for your feedback and your patience.
Steem Blockchain Team
This is the draft for the 0.20.4 release notes.
Issues with fix included in patch 0.20.4:
- #2974 Parameters set too low, and many users are unable to transact
- The RC system constrained resources to too great of an extent
- We are adjusting parameters for minimal disruption
- #2968 Accounts at less than -100% RC cannot regenerate mana
- If an account was not able to get to positive RC within 5 days, it would not be able to do so at all.
- #2961 Powering up / delegating SP does not increase RC
- Bug: users powering up, were not able to vote/transact instantly
- Now, receiving SP gives an instant voting mana boost
- #2949 Voting power was not carried over properly at HF20
- Many had their voting power reset to near 0%
- No code change was made, but everyone's voting power will regenerate to normal levels within the next 3 days
- #2971 New accounts with 0 SP only have 3,000 RC
- This issue was a symptom of other issues that were addressed.
- #2942 New witness properties not returned from condenser_api
- The missing properties were added to the legacy API
- #2947 #2957 #2962 Condenser_api.get_accounts returning invalid voting_power values
- The compatibility layer for the old vote power API wasn't properly converting new mana to the older-style vote percent
- Caused irregular values to be displayed for user's current voting power, making it appear voting was buggier than it was
- Edge cases have been fixed, now fully compatible with old system
- #2953 Some accounts had negative resource credits at hardfork time
- Anyone with an active account prior to the hardfork had accumulated debt in the new calculations, unbeknownst to them.
- We reset negative value account to 0, so they can transact.
- #2958 Small accounts did not receive full mana upon the transition.
- All accounts supposed to have a minimum usable amount of RC
- This amount was calculated incorrectly, causing insufficient RC
- Now, most accounts will have a minimum 6M RC instead of 3,000 RC
- #2965 Require broadcasting nodes to have RC plugin enabled
- Using a non-standard configuration for broadcasting nodes could result in transactions not being rejected early
- To prevent configuration mistakes, RC calculations are enabled by default for any node which broadcasts transactions to the network
For details on all changes in HF20 :
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/steem-velocity-hardfork-hardfork-20
Reading these comments, I realize I was mistaken when I left my first comment last night. I was under the impression that new accounts got 15SP to start and that the 10x coming tonight was going to be applied equally to every account. Turns out both are incorrect.
New accounts apparently get only 5SP now. And the 10x is going to the entire RC pool, not equally to each account. Now I don't know how that distribution is going to be decided, but how everything else has been decided suggests that the more you have, the more you'll get.
Well that's just backwards. Right now I can leave 100+ comments/post per day. No way I'm using all that, so making it 1,000+ for me isn't helping anyone.
Meanwhile, a new user genuinely working to build relationships on here and contribute valuable content to the platform may not even get 10x, and even if they did, that would only mean their being able to comment or post about once per day.
Come on. Let's just skip this 10x and go straight to 100x. Then the team can look at usage and adjust from there. It's absurd to make people wait... how much longer?.... before normal usage can resume so that you can even begin collecting meaningful data. Please address this now.
On a separate but related point, why are we equating being new with being a spammer? Why are we trying to fight spam in a way that penalizes new people?
I completely understand the need for using RCs to track resource usage, and giving individuals and the devs accurate feedback on system utilization by various actions. I totally get why that is necessary for SMTs to work in the next fork.
But don't you think you should start by giving people enough RCs for a normal human to function on here when they first start out?
Don't you think the method for preventing spam should not resemble a method for preventing usage by new users?
I was positing this months ago, before UA scores came about, and I see it even more now. I knew that the way people were talking about fighting spam would hurt new users. And then I suggested another dimension for being a real person other than amount of SP held, which was contribution to the platform.
I was unable to make the logistics work, but then came the whole UA score functionality, which has been doing a banging job of figuring out who is contributing more or less to the platform. Why not have that be what determines how many RCs someone starts each 5 day period with?
Let's stop equating having more money with having more value to this platform.
Through the greatest pain comes the greatest growth. But not if the pain is too much to bear. Then all hope is lost.
I totally agree with your suggestion of 100x and then adjust. If the goal and indeed requirement for growth is for people to comment, reply, upvote, and post, then they must be allowed to do this. I don't know enough about the technical requirements here, but I do know people. If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death.
Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day. I personally find it very frustrating being limited to only 10 votes on certain days when there is a lot of good content sliding in between the spam. This is a requirement for the system to grow, we must allow the minnows to interact. Isn't that what has caused the most outrage during this fork? It has been the inability of the general user to interact. Why not implement the "simple" fix as others have called it at 100x, let folks interact, let the userbase grow to support it? If the system cannot handle 100x then maybe 50x, but 10x is far too low and will not solve the problem, only irritate folks more that yet another promise of usability has been violated.
Let's move forward and keep improving this platform!
"Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day"
What about implementing some WEEKLY votes/curation instead of daily? Regular folks love to post some days and the rest of the days work hard and don't have the time to social media.
IMHO
Indeed!! Can’t agree more! That’s what I do, I’m quite active from Monday till Thursday on the train, but Friday I work from home, and next is the weekend. That’s family time. A weekly reasonable limit would be nice.
Exactly. Why frustrate people longer when 10x isn't going to do anything for anyone who actually needs it. And I also want people leaving lots of comments, because that's how you grow. The spammers need to leave 100+ comments per day, but a real person can't. That's where the cutoff should be set.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness...Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
This. Lots of this.
I don't think this is a necessary priority. In fact, I don't think it should be the implementation of RC at all. Rather than linear scaling, why not diminishing RC returns or a baseline level of interaction? For an example of how the former would work, perhaps, someone with 5 SP should be able to make 50 comments a day. Someone with one hundred 75, two hundred SP = 100 comments, 400SP=125 and so on. There's still an incentive to increase STEEM holdings because of voting power and/or some interaction bonus, but you give smaller stakeholders the capacity to actually interact only at the expense of large holders being able to do more than anyone needs to do.
Alternatively, give everyone a baseline RC budget of enough for 50 comments a day and scale linearly from there. That's probably simpler. And I know that the folks running the platform think the market can solve all problems, but it's so clear that it can't. We see free market capitalism failing to create livable circumstances for so many people around the world and cycles of poverty becoming inescapable by means of market forces. Why should we believe that an internal RC market will provide the means by which a feasible system will be born? It's great that it provides data, and that can help developers direct software implementations, but it doesn't work for everyday users, I don't think.
If you read my examples and think, "that won't work, he doesn't understand," Fine, but please don't dismiss the sentiment, which is that "fair market" doesn't work for the majority of users, especially not new users.
I agree with your way of seeing how RCs would work better. It's not the issue of counting them as they are spent, which is what's really needed for HF21. That can stay. It's the issue of how they're meted out in the first place.
Here's the thing I've come to: It isn't that they don't understand that these various methods are feasible for making this platform more hospitable to low SP people or new users unready to buy STEEM right off the bat. It's that they don't care about that.
This HF was a success to them because... well... it was a success for everything they care about.
Many years ago a Buddhist teacher responded to my criticisms of things I'd newly discovered about the community of teachers by saying, "The path of awakening is the path of disillusionment. You have to let go of all your illusions, especially your illusions about [buddhism]." Well I've been applying that to everything ever since.
In this case, the time has come for us to let go of our illusions about what this platform means to the company that created it, and realize that it's not what it means to us. The question then becomes, well how do you personally relate to that? That's a question each of us has to answer for ourselves.
Yes most definitely the free market does not work, except in limited circumstances, for instance when it's new and immature, not yet saturated. As it ages the benefits for middle and lower income brackets diminish, as money migrates to the top, and monopolies become the norm. It's a positive feedback loop impossible to break without outside interference. Same for any closed system, just human nature.
can you explain in very simple terms, how to upload this HF20 patch? Thank you for reading my message
I think you meant to put this question at the top level, not under my comment. At least, I'm not one of the witnesses, and only the witnesses had to do anything with the patch.
The rest of us are just benefiting from their having done it already. You should experience its effects automatically now.
It could also be that my channel has been censored
This is incorrect. New users are delegated 15 SP, not 5. This should be more than enough for them to interact and get started. I believe this is going to change the culture of Steem to be that new users should be going for quality, not quantity. As they prove themselves they will gain more influence and be able to interact more. All in all, it's going to drastically reduce the bots and spam around Steem - which has been one of the number one complaints on the network.
I wrote a blog post about it here if you want to read more about my opinion.
They used to get 15SP, but a number of folks on discord have made it clear they got only 5SP.
Have any examples of this?
I believe this is how it works: you initially receive 15 SP delegation. If you go inactive for some time (30/60/90 days?) then your delegation is reduced to 5 SP. This ensures that you can still interact when (or if) you ever come back. If you do come back, your delegation is probably restored.
I've read and commented on so many of these HF posts, that I can't point out where I could find a linkable one. But I'm pretty sure if you just read all the comments on this one post you'll find someone correcting me on the 15SP vs 5SP point. I know I started calculating based on 15SP, which is what I started with 7 months ago, and was corrected several times, including by someone speaking for himself about one of his accounts.
Check out my post I linked to above. All of the users in the screenshot (created five days ago) have 15SP delegation. I don’t see any evidence to the contrary.
@dailyopinion primarily bots that attempt to police the platform like @steemcleaners. Not only are they completely dishonest, but they fail to realize that decentralization or even separation from the mainstream social bullshit has the initial foundation of NOT wanting to be policed.
Let the community decide the content they would like to see! These idiots develop cartels using delegated Steem and attempt to impose their authoritarian power over minnows, which definitely keeps the platform from growing.
Case-in-point: They use robot software to attempt finding content dupes across the net without ever considering who the main content dev was. Posting earlier on the net does not mean that you originated the content. Especially in cases of purposeful syndication or curation!
My educated guess is that things like @steemcleaners will have plenty of RC to continue operating normally - especially them based on the amount of SP in the account and the large delegation.
In my opinion - leaving an automated comment on someone's post letting people know that the article posted may (or may not) be plagiarized is not a terrible idea, as long as not more than one service is doing such a thing.
It may already do this, but if it doesn't it should probably scan the post for words like "This is not my work" or "I'm sharing this" or something, because sometimes it's totally appropriate to share others content - it is nice to know if the author is really the author though or if they wanted to just share something as people often do on social networks.
The blockchain does let the community decide what they'd like to see, or at least what they would like to make less visible through the use of downvotes. This is the built in blockchain mechanism to allow the community to decide what gets seen or not seen.
Either way, I believe spammy/scammy bots will be a lot less common around here.
Nice words and thanks for the help! :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I wish there was a way to delegate my RC to those that need it without delegating my SP. I generated it, I should be able to delegate it.
Agreed. Delegating RC would be a great feature, which could also allow for big projects like Steemmoners to delegate enough RC to their sign-ups to get them to be able to play the game without any problems.
Delegating RC... will only serve to enrich those with the biggest accounts and will only manage to increase the inequality on the platform.
That's a very pessimistic way to look at it though. I for one think it would be great, because it can allow dapps to purchase RC instead of SP in order to get enough resources to get going. This will be very nice when paired with dapps that run their own SMT.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
There will be. See a post by @ned around two months ago, “Steem’s secret to success” or something along those lines.
The post was very short and rather cryptic but explains a lot now. Those who follow(ed) EOS may also immediately have understood the actual meaning of that post.
That was the content of that post. Make it delegated RC and there you have a rental market soon to come. This will effectively allow SMTs to enter at a much lower cost than when they would have to invest in STEEM and power up.
This sounds great to me! I'm looking forward to learning more about this as it gets developed. Hopefully Steemit Inc. has something more to tell us about these plans soon.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
It’s interesting that you decide to mention something like this after you already dropped such a massive hard fork on everyone. It is exactly this kind of post hoc pretense of responsibility that irritates a lot of witnesses.
If they choose...??? Seriously? You drop a buggy fork (with major problems you knew about), ask for adoption, insinst on no rollback to bandwidth, then pretend that these patches are somehow optional while basic user activity is still throttled?
And rightfully so. Testing known buggy code on production shouldn’t happen.
We’ll hopefully get this fixed. After that, I think it’s time for STINC to step aside as the lead dev team for this blockchain. At this point, SMTs are a no-go. I’m not even going to entertain that insane proposal from your team, given the many mistakes and complete lack of foresight we’ve all witnessed since last year.
Thank you @ats-david.
Some of us have been doing damage control for the last few days, for a group of multi-millionaires who can't seem to be bothered. Personally, I'm over it. Steem is a viable blockchain but Steemit can burn to the ground for all I care.
I notice @ned's mana and RC are both at 100% though. Which begs quite a few questions ...
@ats-david yup
oh and as for top 20 Witnesses offering 'discount' delegation SP to POWER UP is a conflict of interest AT BEST
there seems to be zero ethical compass and when you tout you are a leader then you lead...you APOLOGIZE and you sympathize with those on here like vets and such who needed this money , people bitch about fiat and run to puppets, people who care less if they give millions to hoe bags who dance real pretty and love gourmet food then yank it and fuck it up for communities already established to have been doing good
whatever
This is a trying time, a time where we need champions like you. People's Champions. I truly hope your shining example of speaking up resonates with this community, a decentralized community of powerful, free thinkers who won't have the wool pulled over their eyes. (I hope I have enough RP or mana or whatever other nonsense needed to post this comment!)
aggrandizing for us plebs
aggrandizing for myself because I wanna see the magical fix it patch work
have a nice day
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
That's a good point, they should definitely test the code in a non-production environment first. Does Steem have a test net?
I began mentioning it much more strongly prior to the hardfork when some Witnesses began admitting they hadn’t read the release notes and some top 20 Witnesses only began testing two days prior to the proposed HF. Ask Lukestokes or Reggaemuffin who began prompting Witnesses for their published standards and when.
Going forward speaking loudly to the definitions of the contiuents of Steem governance and their roles, especially going into SMTs and other innovation, is absolutely critical. Without stoic Gatekeeping from our Witnesses, the governance is weak. Without Gatekeepers holding devs accountable to Gatekeeper’s standards, or more importantly, without standards, deliverables are under tested. Without Stakeholders of users and businesses holding Gatekeepers accountable, Gates remain low. We need to raise the Stakeholders voice and raise the Gates and raise the demands for optimal approach to development, which should show itself in aggregate of Witnesses’ standards. Personally as a stakeholder I want from this governance a robust combination of conservative process with consistent drive toward innovative development. There are certainly marked improvements to make here in the short term.
Posted from my iPhone. Please excuse omissions, errors or grammatical mistakes.
Oh what the hell I will burn some resource credits linking to this brilliant piece right here by another deserving witness @paulag who will never have the chance to get to top 20 because she does not have the vote from freedom and that all but seals her fate to live outside the top 20 no matter what she does. Please help us @ned . This is a way to fix steemit. Also how many RC does it take to eit because I had to do a new comment because it was saying I did not have enough credits to edit a comment but I can make a whole new one.
@doomsdaychassis one day the distribution will change, you and I will be whales, freedom will be gone and @steemcommunity will have an amazing chance of climbing to the top. Why, well because we are working at the grass roots, nurturing the users that are sticking with steem. So when @ned and steemit inc do have a world class blockchain, they will also have the social proof because we will have created it.
Thank you for this menton, knowing some of the community regard what we do as valuable means a massive amount
Posted using Partiko Android
That's Right ;-)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Disappears for months, Shows up to point fingers at everyone but the team that has millions of dollars to spend on resources which are the "gatekeepers". Would flag for self aggrandizement, but I don't want to consume my precious RC on it and I can't afford it anyway, because I was using my power to help users all morning on other threads. Trying to retain some of them before this place goes completely ghost town over crap decisions and poor execution by the aristocracy, that fails at meritocracy.
I want to congratulate you @ned . People wouldn't comment or even waste their time if they didn't care. There have been some really cool things the STEEM blockchain has accomplished and it has been an interesting experiment.
What has been created here is hard to replicate. It is far too expensive and requires too much funding for people to easily build their own platforms to "fix" the issues here. If it was easy everyone would do it.
That all being said the platform has frustrated us for over two years. It doesn't really improve it just changes. The same scenarios continue to exist that the distribution was an absolute joke and for the most part the witness situation is a complete joke and always has been.
This blockchain has probably made about 50 people more successful than they were before. Everyone else has been stuck in a frustrating time trap.
Congratulations @ned ..... you won
I feel your emotion but I do not claim to understand it based on what you’ve described. Here are my premises for being resistant to even attempting to clarify your distribution comment because I feel it’s ignoring these: Distribution is woven by Pareto principle as are all the projects and you can’t change this. What exactly are you saying it’s a problem for, Proof of Brain? Peoples money should never be taken from them. Steem is entirely an opt-in system.
The system is broken in so many ways it is silly. There needs to be vote decay on the witnesses as well as a system that will rotate them out of the top 20 for a period of time if they have been in that position for over six months. A lot of them are just hanging out using this as a funding mechanism for their other projects specifically EOS related stuff. I get why they are doing this. They are already in a position of power and don't have to do much to maintain that. If I had to vote for just one witness it would be @good-karma because he has continually worked on making this blockchain more accessible and usable and has taken on other team members. He isn't just "witnessing" blocks. The bad initial distribution did effect the Proof of Brain mechanism because so much power was accumulated by people that didn't really care about the platform as a social / content platform. They treated it like I treated Ripple.... as a use it and loose it scenario. I don't care about Ripple. I think it is garbage and just rode a hype wave and then peaced out. That is how a lot of people who garnered a ton of power here treated this blockchain while the ones that have stuck around for a couple years and have fought for this platform can't really get into a position of influence because of the messed up initial distribution and no vote decay on the witness votes among other problems. At this point the witness stuff can't be corrected because the top 20 witnesses won't adopt a change that takes them out of power. Those in power will always seek to remain in power.
If some people were given the opportunity to get the type of rewards associated with being a top 20 witness they would treat it as a full time job. It actually cracks me up how some people keep telling me to launch a witness on this blockchain and see if I can get the votes. That is a quick way to be further unprofitable on this chain. I'm a witness on another chain and it becomes a very tight group with everyone jockeying for position to become God kings who will rule the blockchain for the entire life cycle of it's existence. It can quickly throw off the balance of power within a few weeks. On this chain there was the ninja mine and a few other factors that have skewed things into eternity.
Overall the STEEM blockchain has been a great success because it made the founders richer and Steemit INC has the development funds to continue to work on the codebase / hang out for the next 10 years. There is nothing wrong with that. You guys had the ability to solidify your future. It will always survive but there are a lot of reasons we don't see it thriving like it could. There is a reason it has slipped from the #3 spot on CoinMarketCap clear down to where it is now. The market has spoken.... it hasn't been a very good experience or investment for a lot of us. We are then looked at as complainers to the 50 people who made a solid amount of money here. Every time I have powered up here I have ultimately regretted it. My biggest power up was 0.5 BTC in December. I was willing to risk that but ended up regretting it once again. A lot of people feel the same way. I have never felt that way about EOS or even stuff like DigiByte or Litecoin or Monero.
In my opinion technologically STEEM is the #1 blockchain..... even better than EOS because of the 3+ years of development but I can't recommend it as an investment because the risk of being dumped on really badly is way too great. It will devalue a person's time like no other blockchain. Then you have risked your capital and your time. Double whammy.
I don't mean this in a negative way but I feel that you have grown up in a wealthy environment and therefore there is a large disconnect between your thought process and the thought process of a common person. It is all relative what motivates people but I feel like you are far removed from anyone who would have to do manual labor in a field or who has struggled to a point where they don't have enough money to fill up their gas tank. It is imperative for a large percentage of people to see value in the system for it to really get the numbers to thrive.
Again I'm not saying it is a bad thing but it just appears to be true over the last couple of years. STEEM is in serious threat of becoming like Friendster, BETA Max, or the Sega Saturn.
If you read all of this don't take it as a negative tone. STEEM is pretty cool and again technologically it is #1 in my mind. You guys have succeeded in becoming more wealthy so it has served its purpose. The clones are coming online confirming the admiration for what has been built here.
I have looked at what I perceive as the missteps of STEEM, Golos, WEKU, Whaleshares, VIT....etc.
STEEM is really a production level testnet and more 3rd party applications will go to their own chains and more competition will come online that are clones of STEEM and others that are being built on EOS. It is just simply reality and honestly I don't think it is anything you need to really worry about. You guys have generated enough wealth out of this system to ride into the sunset if managed correctly.
It is odd that when I was in Sydney as a mentor for the EOS hackathon that Block One employees actually though I had interesting things to say and agreed with me one the issues of why STEEM has never thrived and isn't a good user experience.
Over here the 50 or so people who are founders / ninja miners / top witnesses just act like I'm some complainer nobody. It is strange. Actually I just don't think any of you care.
There are the parties’ invisible, unmentioned incentives here. Much of crypto operates in fiefdoms and the resulting biases. Thanks for disclosing your status.
There really aren't invisible incentives. Clear back in 2016 I was voicing my opinions on issues with the STEEM blockchain instead of just becoming a cookie cutter content mill like other content creators decided to make. EOS didn't exist then and I clearly knew the capabilities of this blockchain far exceeded Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other chains.
I was investing in EOS last summer way before ever having any chance to be a mentor at their hackathon series.
I have said that STEEM is #1 technologically and is ahead of EOS in a lot of ways. Why would I say that if I was 100% all about EOS?
Also why would I be directing people back to Steemit from Instagram if I was trying to act like STEEM is total trash? I don't even direct them back to my YouTube channel that has a decent following.
A month ago I made an effort to directly convince @jerrybanfield to allow me to take over his #35 Witness slot. Ultimately it didn't work out and evidently someone else saw my video and was able to strike a deal with him to take it over.
This is after I had been to the EOS hackathon and spoke with Block One employees. I still think that STEEM has a chance but unfortunately for me I'm not able to really focus on this chain.
I don't really know what to say other than I feel like there have been some missteps and it is ruled by very few.
Nothing in the crypto world has been able to do what the STEEM blockchain has accomplished in two years. I would like to see it take off and I will likely always keep a small investment in the platform.
I do wish everyone luck here. Ultimately I'm just a small investor and one of the 10% of people who actually didn't just leave the platform and stuck around trying to make it an environment that could progress the user base and the price of STEEM. A lot of us in that position feel our efforts are futile and have often wondered if we would have been better off never spending the time here.
@brianphobos - Welcome to TELOS http://testnet.telosfoundation.io/ and we need BPs...
TELOS will not be like EOS and STEEM which is ruled by Whales... We both tried EOS during launch but it was ruled by Whales who blocked all others.... TELSO is aiming to be a decentralized network with no whales (at least from start).... Just run a node in TELOS and contribute in it's development to make it de-centralized...
I’m talking about all parties you mentioned in that paragraph. There are always invisible incentives.
If you want real feedback — my feedback would criticize your take on how witnesses and distribution are holding back the platform — and how they are different from other platforms. When I analyze your reference to one set of these things over the other, I see hypocritical analysis and comparisons. When I see hypocritical analyses, I look for incentives. There are always incentives.
We appreciate your feedback and that you feel your voice isn't being heard here, I don't think Ned was saying anything to the contrary. I think you can appreciate the fact that we have been inundated with people telling us how we should do things differently since the very beginning. How we shouldn't use PoS or DPoS, how we should have smart contracts, etc. People often point to the initial "unfair distribution" and I think Ned's point comes down to the fact that they never point to another established chain that had a "fair" initial distribution. They are all fiefdoms but NONE enable anyone to join and begin earning that same stake simply by creating. It's not a perfect system, but we would love to be able to look at another system that was "better" so that we could learn from them. Unfortunately, as you say yourself, no one has been able to do what we've done, so we don't have many people to look at. We are open to positive changes for which there is a consensus, but it seems that most people just want us to listen to them and no one else. My point is really only that whatever the history of the formation of this ecosystem, it is responsible for both the negative AND the positive consequences. Those people who were most involved in the beginning, they're the ones who built a blockchain that was able to do what "nothing in the crypto world has been able to do."
If you believe in this chain we are eager to work with all who help build a consensus around the positive changes that need to happen. I don't believe we have ever done anything that indicates otherwise. At the same time, we have no problem with people looking at other projects, participating in them, and lending the insights they've gained from a project that is much farther along and mature than they are. It's not us-versus-them. We're all in this together trying to build a better future.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Your problem is you do not understand 1 Steem is 1 Steem, period. You got how many Steem for .5 of 1 BTC? There is no way that could equal a loss in terms of crypto, if you are referencing fiat than you do not need a witness position on any chain.
This is an opinion I do not share. Perhaps money should never unjustly be taken from them, but that's a far cry from never. When the very rich abuse their power and the poor suffer, the very rich should have their wealth taken from them to empower the poor.
This is true both on and off the blockchain. There's a gray area of where "abuse their power" begins and ends, and we should have some clarity before anybody does have their money taken from them on what constitutes "abuse", "power", and "wealthy", but the blanket
should not be our guiding principle.
Hi, @ned, I don't know if you're reading these or not, a lot of people have some pretty hostile responses here and while I feel them I couldn't blame you for feeling like this was going nowhere. However, I have a suggestion for addressing some of these issues, and I hope you'll consider it.
Part of the problem here is that witness rewards aren't tied into testing, code review, and so on. And I believe that they shouldn't be - there are different skillsets required for being a good dev and a good witness. But that means that sufficient testing of the hardforks is unrewarded, which is why no one was doing it.
I propose that we set up a Utopian-like system, supported with SP from Steemit Inc. and the top witnesses, specifically for Steem blockchain development. New code, code review, unit testing, bug reports, testnet experiences, and so on could all be done publicly through posts and rewarded through votes, so that instead of every witness having to do a private review of code that is scattered through github, there would be a reviewable public record of the testing that was being done, and more importantly, everyone could contribute to it. This would provide the incentive for more extensive testing that the current system is lacking without putting additional burden on witnesses, or requiring that any dev who wants to be compensated for that work also run a witness.
This would provide the witnesses with a collection of data they could more easily review, and expertise from a larger group of people reviewing the actual code and supplying their expertise, before making their decision to accept an update. It would also put their information-state on a par with the rest of the community's, so we would not be assuming that the job was being done in the background.
YES. I love this. And I also love that it would make possible and enticing the idea that even hobbyists could contribute. One of my favorite experiences recently was taking a look at the new code for when @steembasicincome will be automated and checking for any logic bugs with my little knowledge. Now, I didn't find any, and I don't know how helpful I was, and I didn't understand all the nuances of what I was reading, but that little real-world experience helped me learn so much about Python.
I can imagine a whole part of steemit dedicated to explaining what each section of code does and how it does it, and having that explained to the laymen. I think this would go not only a long way in helping find and fix potential errors, but also in getting so much more of humanity on board with what blockchains are, how they work and why we're using them.
Finally, some good input on how to improve STEEM.
Seems like there will be a bunch of arguing back and forth about each change where the consensus would be against change as people fear change.
How about we take your idea but instead place a bounty reward for anyone (not just witnesses) who can identify a bug? An account can be set up with SP with delegation renting to accrue more value until the next fork. This way it pays for itself.
I would name it http://SteemTest.io as the place where the test version of Steemit can be as you have stated, or we can call it something else, but something easy enough for enough people to know how to find for observing, testing, considering, contributing, for some feedback, and a great failsafe and also a great public record of it all just in case. Thanks for sharing this with the world.
And the true shame of it all is that we as steemians can do nothing about the witness situation. As we all know @freedom is a mega account and has allmost all the top 20 witnesses propped up there with his vote. Hell even @aggroed wrote an article about it.
https://steemit.com/freedom/@aggroed/the-twelve-million-dollar-miner-who-is-freedom
maybe in the next hard fork we could address that account so that the rest of us actually have any power to choose witnesses that want to do the job, not just sit in a top 20 spot and line their pockets. If what you say is true about them only testing 2 days ahead of time that is just shamefull and they should be fired by the people. I guess the obvious answer would be "well it is his stake and he can do as he wishes, If you don't like it doomsday then stop being a peasant." As long as witnesses are complacent because they have the @freedom vote in their back pocket we are all stuck with them no matter how hard we try to leverage them out.
@doomsdaychassis makes the best argument. I have been trying to get witnesses to take on a leadership role since Steemit Inc leaves major gaps in functioning as a leader. The argument from witnesses is that leadership isn't their duty. It is true it is not their duty especially when they are on the @freedom easy street. It really is up to @freedom to decide if the witnesses should take on a leadership role. The CEO can point fingers all he wants to, but at the end of the day, the CEO of the company that develops the software is the one responsible.
Thank you so much for having my back. I truly appreciate it. I am fully on board with exactly what you are trying to do also. I want steem and steemit to be wildly successful. I can not tell you how much this place being a great success would help me in life. I do not complain to just bitch about stuff. I complain because I see something that is broken and as a mechanic my job is to fix broken shit. Please let us help identify problem spots and fix it. I love getting on steemit. I have gotten rid of facebook 100% to stay here and interact with my fellow steemians. Please don't kill that. Please don't force me out of here. I am loyal. I want a successful steemit.
The fundamental problem with steem is that the rules are set up to encourage and then maintain an oligarchy. As long as that continues, Steem, as a content platform or social network, is doomed. An oligarchy is not decentralized. The hierarchy formed by proof of stake is not decentralized. As a content platform the rules need to be set up to reward quality content not who has the most stake. Of course with an oligarchy it is hard to change the rules to benefit the majority over the minority. We see that in government today and it is causing all kinds of problems. Yes, people can buy into Steem, but money is not a substitute for proof of brain in either the extra-steem world or steem.
I have introduced many people to Steem, but I'm the only one regularly using it. Once they learn about all the limits and that those highly paid posts are really purchased, they lose interest. Now with RC so limited for new users, things will be even worse. I see Steem as an interesting experiment, which is why I am here. My hope is that it will dramatically improve, or else a competitor will come along that bests it. The basic idea is really good, its current and continued implementation is just flawed. I could say that that is to be expected given the uncharted territory Steem is in, but many many posts have pointed out problems, some have suggested solutions, and as far as I can tell the oligarchy has rejected all of them.
Proud member of #steemitbloggers @steemitbloggers
THANK YOU. Someone finally gets it. I have brought many people to the platform and they abandoned it because of the "whale culture" we are going to brand it. The only people that get it has been here for a while and suffer from Stockholm syndrome. I love steemit. I hate being serious. I like to meme and shit post and mainly engage with other people here more than anything but this set up is not helping by penalizing me for making comments. I do not want to make shit posts I would rather follow people and check out actual real content that is informative and helps me in the crypto world. I have learned sooooo much here it is unbelievable. I can not imagine how shitty it will become if people are punished for talking to each other.
Sorry for a short reply but I believe a simple
100%
says about everything I could spend hours writing out. Thank you so much for your input and I believe that is pretty much what we are all feeling right now.
You forgot to throw the likes of berniesanders (and all his multiple personalities) into the mix of mis-fortune for good measure.
Thanks for the belly laugh.
Thanks more for the true words.
Bringing laughter to others really makes my day. I am glad I could provide a laugh in this time of unhappiness on steemit.
This needs to be trending...^^^ if these inequalities aren’t faced and dealt with, we will lose more and more users as they realize it’s rigged!
Thank you. I am going to try and sit down this weekend and write out a post about my concerns, some of which are listed here.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward . Future Is History"
What I can do is remove all my witness votes... and that is all that I can do (and did). Oh wait... I can power down also!
@ned I'm shaking my head
Lemme get this straight, you need rigorous gatekeeping witnesses to stop the shitty code changes, yet there are sweet fanny Adams that understand the code in its entirety
Inherently you are outsourcing code QA to people that are paid for their services by the output of that code.
And that looks like a serious conflict of interest.
Oh and vote for my witness if you want change 😂
I take blame here. Let’s now look forward again — the reality is the system is going to be stronger with published Witness’ Gatekeeping Standards. These become Steem’s development companies’ standards that must be met too.It’s something we’ll all arrive at together. I’m actually looking forward to the process. Once we get some of our sleep back
Thanks for the reply, you will be seeing more, Much More, from this fair lady, @Sapphic! 35 years IT and related fields experience, and since we've been together I have become more impressed by her skills every day. We are building something great together, and that vote request was not a joke, she can really back that up!
PS: Get some rest, we will all need it as these markets open back up. We need great leadership, @ned, so be ready for the task! I say that we are HERE:
This is a good conversation starter for Witness’ Gatekeeping Standards: https://steemit.com/witness-update/@reggaemuffin/witness-statement-for-reggaemuffin-proposing-hardfork-adoption-requirements
What about STINC/Steemit Inc. @ned? Are you planning to formalize steem's development process ever?
We have greatly improved organizational development practices since the several prior forks, including real adherence to Agile development, but we haven’t improved enough. The post mortem of HF20 will make us sick and cry. Our Standards will increase. I want the witness’ Gatekeeping Standards even higher. There is a silver lining in struggles or failure — it can be the beginning of new strengths.
Its not easy to focus on the business challenges and the software development at the same time especially in such a community where there are lots of people whose lively hood is from STEEM. So personally I would say, understanding is a good starting point and this can be the beginning of a new era. By adapting a model similar to Wikipedia and true to FOSS principles, IMHO this project can set standards in the blockchain software development.
Agile, yes -- but need "Test Driven Agile Development". This is the ONLY shortfall and everything else will fall in place auto-magically.
Few points:
Your biggest strength is an incredible community & wishing STEEM all the best!
That is good will from you @ned! However, having a formal process requires more than just good will. I've been involved on a CMMI level 3 certification about 6 years ago, it was way too boring back then, but it brought the ability to scale. Not an easy process btw, we had to make hard decisions and to deal with key people leaving the company, but things stabilized over time. So, you had the guts to let HF20 go, how about letting your company to formalize with working industry standards?
This is great that you read one comment. I hope you read the rest. If you want to make improvements, then it is imperative.
Also I love that you know that you are a stakeholder. I hope you also recognize that your customers on Steemit are stakeholders too. And if you do, then as the leader of this organization it is your duty to address the issues many of the Steemit users will be facing with this new implementation.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
@ned If you want real change it is simple give every steemian equal voting power on such important matters such as witness votes ect. like this people who actually earn the trust of the users get the power not some entitled sponsored idiots who could not bother to test or read ...
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I am excited to see where 1 million accounts takes us. I remember when you were on TV talking about Steem at 100,000 users. Keep on @ned you are doing great! I am looking forward to SMTs
Welp, I tell ya, @ned... that is why I am working on this thing here that I call the "Dolphin Council" and we are working on making the role "Witness" equivalent and now that I am both, it is morphing into a combination council. I do not pretend to be the "leader" of this new group, but at this time I am guiding the charter of it. Your "gatekeepers" speech above gives me some great ideas for the Council. Thanks.
As you may have noticed, Many or Most of the new witnesses are mid-level folks, which is a good deal. New Blood, fresh ideas, different perspectives. The "DC" hopes to mirror this new(er) Steem Demographic and "inject" these traits into the Blockchain.
Could not have said it better myself, but that sums up a lot of my feelings about the "State Of Steem"...
You seems to think that STINC blocking the way by being the lead dev team.
You might want to find replacements before firing someone.
I’m currently reviewing résumés. :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward.Future Is History"
Perhaps new (fresh accounts) - in particular ones transacting with dApps such as Steem Monsters, dtube, VIMM, etc get a pooled bonus to enjoy those apps... sensibly (ie accounts with x steem power, zero flags, and transactions of a certain json) get discounted "transactions" in terms of resource credits that tapers away as their account grows.
Surely every account at dolphin / orca / whale status isn't expected to use their entire allocation of Resource Credits in a single day? Does this not create equilibrium? I could never imagine using my entire bandwidth allocation pre HF20.
I may be missing the whole point, but the true cost of not-transacting on chain at all for these new and on boarding accounts is far greater than the "true cost" of a transaction in terms of blockchain computational cost.
I know that this update lays the foundation for SMTs, and I might be missing something about how RC interact with this, but please, think of the minnows!
They're our future!
@holoz0r, let me add to your submission that Planktons and minnows are users who keep the #steemit platform engaging. Their quest for growth is what spurs frequent posts and comments against what the whales do.
Sadly, this RC computation has totally denied most planktons and minnows of this feeling as they cannot post nor comment. This should be revisited.
Moreover, the RC computation do not show estimates for posts. Estimates are only pooled for comments, voting and poweups. Personally had 19 comment pools. After I successfully made one post, the whole thing drained to 6, implying I cannot post again in the mean time.
@steemitblog, help us by giving estimates of posts or amount of RCs needed for posts so we can plan well.
Thank you for the update though we expect more frequent updates in 6 hour intervals..
This is a primary concern for our group as well. Many of the people who participate in our #informationwar group are under 100 SP, brand new people obviously having the default amount upon account creation.
The best way for people to get more followers and interact with people is to make dozens of comments daily on posts they find interesting. We will see a hampering of growth in tota new accounts are not abl to make many comments daily. Reddit for example, you might make 30 to 40 comments there daily pretty easily, theres so many subreddits you can follow and so many things to comment on. Steem is growing and this will be the case here as well. When users find they can't make a reasonable amount of comments they will likely not want to be here.
Are we going to have the ability to sell our excess Resource Credits and or loan excess Resource Credits? As was stated, people with a few thousand SP can basically make hundreds of comments per day and likely never will use all of their bandwidth(resource credits).
I would really like the ability for the InformationWar account to be able to give out our excess Resource Credits, and or have an option that delegates a % of our Resource Credits out to someone else.
A few ways I think it could work, first one being that you do the same as Steemauto upvoting services do it. Give us the ability to set a threshhold/limit to how much % the IW account can give out in a day. So if we have 10 people signed up under us, and we allocated in total 10% of our resource credits out, and we allow each user to only take one full percentage point per day. Very similar to how you setup curation trail upvote following on Steem auto, preset limits based in %.
Or give us the option to give someone the Resource Credit itself, so we could transfer it like we transfer Steem or SBD from account to account.
There should be so much excess Resource Credits that whales will be fighting eachother for who can price it lower, so the price of such a thing shouldn't be very high.
I welcome all criticism/feedback to this suggestion of course.
Thanks, @truthforce
comment as a bookmark so I can revisit these ideas
Why can't we make Post Playlists? Not just with bookmarking comments, posts, but in making playlists, or I mean lists, like you see on YouTube, but just lists of articles, comments, videos, photos, or whatever that we may find on Steemit and/or anywhere online, offline, or whatever. We also SHOULD have premium content like they have on Gab.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I like the idea, but I think it would be nicer to implement such a way of dealing with the RC in a built-in method (managed by the network code, or witnesses). And have let's say a flag you could broadcast, to enable/disable others using your RC (and maybe auto-activate for account inactive for more than... X amount of time). In return, a small percentage of the reward will revert to the RC share poolers (users that wish to share their RC). A limit of RC to share should also be implemented, to avoid locking up accounts (let's say, we could say that I am willing to participate with RC up to 50%, and after that, I would need to wait for recharge). This last bit might be very hard to implement, I am guessing.
The reason I believe it to be best as a built-in property of the blockchain code, is to reduce or avoid gaming situations of price manipulation. And it would allow the entire accounting ecosystem of steem to be used as a resource pool. This will greatly create competition for whales and following investors. But most importantly, this will give or greatly increase the opportunity for minnows to participate with very low bandwidth, more often.
To create an incentive for users to NOT use the system as a reward mechanism ONLY (and kill the network interactivity), the above pool would be consumed in a product of the percentage of each RC for the amount of account inactivity. Meaning that for all inactive accounts, the RC share would be much higher and would unfavour whales to become inactive for the exploitation of the RC share (since the reward of using accounts would be much higher than becoming inactive to grab higher RC).
Really nice discussion.
I love this idea, and was actually going to suggest it on an earlier thread, but I didn't have enough RCs to comment at the time.
@truthforce Your suggestions are really good and based on facts. I really appreciate it and hope all steemit services will resume shortly.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
There are third party tools (such as steem.supply) which will show an estimate of posts/ votes/ transactions available, however, I am not certain of their mathematical accuracy; given the instability we're all going through right now.
Once the numbers stabilise, I'm sure we'll see the true potential of this "Velocity" Hard Fork come to be.
I hope
We will...have faith, just needs a little tweak for minnows and gold :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forwar. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
What does this mean?
It says i have RC Status 69.71 %|1,269,526,091,571 RC. ... Is this good?
It means you have a trillion RC which is more than mine which I have 211 SP. SO, I can comment more than 100 times a day, or something like that currently, and you probably can do a little more than that as of right now.
OK I feel that you have explained this well and have done some.research. #namaste
Posted using Partiko Android
Awesome
ok thanks @joeyrnoldvn
Wtf @christoryan .....once again your fucking me over!! How dare you transfer MY REWARDS to you?? I hope you get fucked really hard in the ASS....Oh wait I forgot, YOU LOVE STUFF SHOVED UP YOUR ASS! Kharma is coming for you Christopher Ryan Butler.....and I have a feeling it will hurt....even for your punk bitch self
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
In truth the very real danger is that there will be no future dolphins or whales, which is kind of the truth about mankind. When we have children, the parents have to sink a large portion of the available resources into the health and well being of that new Sovereign Autonomous Life. That investment is the principal authority of the investor or in life the parent. Everyone involved has that principal investment to some degree. Witnesses are a part of everyone and I am sure looking out for there own vested interest. In truth if you don't think that the witnesses vested interest is the same as your own, than why are you here?
If you do believe that the Witnesses vested interest and yours is close enough to be there no never mind, than pay the Witnesses the past performance we have enjoyed. Have faith in the only proper use of faith there is. Just as you know the Sun will come up, because it has in the past. So should you know that those who are working to make our experiences the best that it can be, are. Later we can pick it all apart and see how we can make it better.
For now I say let the drivers drive, and see if we are not where they said we would be?
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
I did a SteemMonster gift card to see the tax and it was zero!
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
If you consider that the dApps will be able to get discounted account tokens and they will likely have RC, they can potentially onboard and delegate to their new users directly in the future. And as you have rightly noticed, you aren't likely to ever need all of your RC so essentially there is the potential to have a bandwidth market where those same dApps or users perhaps can rent lines in various ways, just like Steem delegations.
Seeing what the true costs are however is an important thing to do before concessions can be made. Up until this point, no one knew what was costing what where which meant many accounts were interacting in a type of debt structure without knowing it. Now it seems that it is possible to better allocate resources to where they are needed as we can see where the needs actually are. In time, this should be able to be continuously fine tuned and tweaked to support onboarding and the support of onboards as it will be clear what is required to do so.
The current situation although uncomfortable is likely relatively short-lived but could bring a lot more opportunity as it empowers the Dapps to better serve their users which means, higher decentralization and distribution.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Yes. This is EXACTLY where I'm at. Those minnows are gunna bail.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Yeah in theory, it sounds great, but this could be open to abuse from bots. If you give too many RC's away to new accounts this could just lead to more SPAM. This is a fine balancing act for sure.
For now, the 'dApps' onboarding new users may need to delegate SP to ensure the new users can use their apps as intended.
Not ideal for sure, but could solve a problem or two.
In an ideal world dolphins and above should be able 'sponsor' or 'buddy up' with new users to share their RC credits. ie. You go fishing in the plankton pool and give someone or many people that you think have potential access to your RC credits. (Let's call it Delegated RC)
Just thinking out loud.
What is spam? Is my comment here spam?
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
its been a long time since the update and my best friend @steemingmark still cant post his blogs?? Please help!?
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Can we donate money to new accounts in order to give them more resource credits (RC)? Can we have a test website where hard forks are tested at? Back to my first question, why not encourage individuals to help new users by vetting them, by sponsoring them in joining Steem, financially, instead of by simply expecting Steem to offer too much welfare, socialism, free money, themselves?
https://steemit.com/witness-update/@reggaemuffin/witness-statement-for-reggaemuffin-proposing-hardfork-adoption-requirements
We have also posted our new "Standards" for future HF's and testing
https://steemit.com/witness-update/@followbtcnews/with-hf20-now-live-it-s-time-for-a-look-at-the-process-a-statement-from-one-of-the-consensus-witnesses
As we move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Getting not enough rc credits to power up needs to be fixed. If powering up gives more rc credits people will be more likely to power up. But if you can't power up when low on RC then it kind of lowers engagement. I do a lot of promoting for steemit give away a ton of steem swag and I can already see a difference in entries for the lastest item it was suppose to be in honor of the hf. The comments of those who I know love this platform is very telling. It is like us little people who work hard to grow the platform but don't have tens of thousands of dollars don't matter. I hope this will fix those issues. I love this platform but the last few days have sucked. Just being honest.
I agree. The comments are very telling. I say we wait it out and see how things balance over the next week or so. But if what I suspect is true, they've changed the model entirely from a "newbie centered" platform, to an "investor centered" platform.
I am hoping things stablize and I am seeing some positive signs my RC restored to 100%
Because sitting back, waiting a week, and just hoping things "stabilize" is "good for the platform"?
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
Sigue costando 91% de mi steem power votar? daba un voto y me quedaba con 17% ...
@steemitblog
What about the missing posts in the various channels (Trending, New, ..)??
Just one example:
I want you to make steemit reward as weku.
No matter what tge value of steem is, the rewards should be like weku. This will male more people engage at steemit.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"