You will not die, don't be dramatic. Perhaps you feel discouraged.
No need to panic it is a good thing they are working on making the blockchain more efficient, which is good for all of us. My point is that is all they are committing to and some people are still pretending we will have SMTs and upgrades coming. I find it really unlikely.
I can't speak for 20 witnesses. I have little doubt there will continue to be witnesses willing to sign blocks even if not necessarily all of the current ones. The list has changed over time anyway.
I know for the first time in 2.5 years (to my knowledge), some people have been seriously talking about a fork that would lock or erase the ninjamined steemit/founder stake because they are not convinced that Steemit as acting in good faith nor holding up its end of the social contract. It is disturbing that things have gotten so bad that is actually being considered.
It isn't something I'm in favor of at this point, but frankly Steemit seems to be doing its very best to push people toward that. I guess one might wonder if they have reasons to want it, or are really just THAT incompetent. I'm honestly not sure.
A large (likely 50%+, but certainly at least 30%+) stakeholder who didn't buy in and doesn't contribute (sufficiently) is just a parasite who will not only dilute the good work of others but also depress the price for years with their continued selling. That doesn't strike me as realistic.
I'd likely just sell my stake for whatever I can salvage from it and move on to more promising projects if things don't turn around.
I think its possible they can hit some sort of stride in terms of development progress, particularly if they can follow through on the idea of not stretching too thin trying to do too much and just focus on the damn development.
It hasn't happened yet but I don't rule it out. There are some competent even brilliant developers there.
no need for a reverse split they changed the upvote chargedown by 30% ALREADY BY MAKING 2 FULL UPVOTES INCREASING THE POWERDOWN PERCENTAGE TAKEN OFF FROM 2.5% TO 3.5% SO FOR A FULL RECHARGE IN 24 HOURS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE NOW 14.5 FULL UPVOTES A DAY DOWN FROM 18 !!!! That is a sh-tload of money being taken out of the pockets of everyone who rented delegation for long periods of time, bot owners, curators, authors....
The hosting costs were actually much less than what they let on....
THIS IS THE COST SAVINGS THEY WERE HIDING....I HAVE PAID FOR 14000 5 MINUTE PROCESSES A DAY ON aws AND THE COST WAS UNDER $900 A DAY, THAT MEANS ON THE COURSE OF A YEAR IT WAS LESS THAN $320K.
The $2 million cost of server operation was BS!!!
Anyone can do the math....
As a Steem (backup) witness, I am prepared to support the chain by whatever minimal support I can do + running the servers up for the foreseeable future without any revenue from the effort. I think many others also will do the same - but I can only speak for myself. I hope that answers the "whatever" comes scenario.
I can't comment on STEEM/SBD values as as markets and economics is not my area of expertise.
Sadly, that is a more direct way to say, what I am feeling as well. My point is why pretend we are getting any SMTs or upgrades. I don't understand why we are acting like we are going to get it.
I think it's unbelieve, hope I say that good on english.
I still can not grasp what is enfolding, sometimes I think, it can not be otherwise, it is so, that they plan this "shit" because you can't make this up. Looks more and more a planned hit and run job from the side of steemit inc. They ninja mined a huge stake, dropped a year 2000 blogging website, a beta... suck it all in, and after things get to hot under their feet (when the community asks innovation, new features and is demanding), spit it all out... and they will milk this cow until the end of time, at the expense of us, community and investors.
It's spooky that there is still no communications, not only from steemit inc. but also not from our top 20 witnesses, I surely hope they can find a way to speak with one voice and have a scenario ready, for the future,... but maybe, that's also whishfull thinking on my part.
We have more problems at hand, even when steemit inc drops out, witnesses should take over, but the state of the blockchain today demands some really nasty decisions, investments and fixes.
Even more important then this whole steemit inc. drama.
Steemit inc. wants to change into a blockchain company. Same structure as block.one (EOS). So yes I agree, and that's also my take on the state of affairs, no drama, just calm realization.
And I am surely not sad because of the change of roles steemit inc. sees for themselves. I hope for some new kids on the block.
Time will tell, if steemit inc. with its huge stake will allow a new kid on the block... if they block this... I am sure we will fork our way forward. :)
Ned needs to donate Steemit as open source, not steem, let them work on the blockchain, And he needs to keep some Steem but divest most. I suggest a kickstarter campaign for a buy out for everything in the original management team except for 10%, With a closed end dividend for 5 years for them as long as they continue with the business and see a smooth transition. So if they do not want to continue they have a parachute.
LOL, imagine getting the attention SMTs from somebody like Anil Dash and including “realnedscott” in the twitter convo. Even telegramming him about it.
Guess who doesn’t feel follow on. Unless, of course, it wasn’t placed on the roadmap. The 2016 one.
STEEM blockchain can already handle tokens. In fact, @pocket-a by @biophil was the first token that was airdropped on Steemitians. Anybody could send POCKET with a comment. It was initially traded at Bitshares 100-200 per BTS. It is not maintained anymore. It is open source and anybody can launch a TOKEN right now if one wishes.
I'm not sure this is a matter of centralization directly but it is a matter of Steemit injecting its own operational priorities on to development priorities which is indeed a form of harmful centralization.
This is why I proposed that they shut down or spin off their own nodes (in an orderly manner) and only then undertake to optimize the code. I'm not aware of any other blockchain project where the developer team runs nodes for everyone else and it is fundamentally not a favorable model in terms of development supporting long term success.
There is a real tradeoff with RocksDB in that it will likely be a lot less efficient in terms of performance while reducing memory usage. That will have a long term cost in terms of scalability of transaction rate and then ultimately other complexity and maintainability issues (which is why graphene was designed with a non-blocking in-memory model for transactions validation in the first place).
It may turn out that this is a good tradeoff, but the problem is that neither demand for it nor any specification of requirements is coming from a broad community of people trying to run nodes and scale businesses who then feed back those diverse experiences to a neutral developer team. It is one company deciding that its own short term AWS bill should determine the course of the development roadmap for the entire blockchain, and that's a problem.
You will not die, don't be dramatic. Perhaps you feel discouraged.
No need to panic it is a good thing they are working on making the blockchain more efficient, which is good for all of us. My point is that is all they are committing to and some people are still pretending we will have SMTs and upgrades coming. I find it really unlikely.
The track record is that even things they 'commit' to often don't get delivered.
Even relatively simple things like a livestream.
Anyone who still believes a word any of them say this point is a beyond helping.
Is this the end of the road? Are there any emergency plans? Witnesses are also silent, very spooky, how is their take on the way forward?
Steemit Inc, drops out, and burn their stake? smiles
Or a reverse split, 4-1 steem and sbd with incentives to convert so that this huge sbd debt is gone or minimalised? It's going to slow now...
But most important is some voices on this silence, can you as a witness confirm all those top 20 witnesses are ready for whatever comes?
I can't speak for 20 witnesses. I have little doubt there will continue to be witnesses willing to sign blocks even if not necessarily all of the current ones. The list has changed over time anyway.
I know for the first time in 2.5 years (to my knowledge), some people have been seriously talking about a fork that would lock or erase the ninjamined steemit/founder stake because they are not convinced that Steemit as acting in good faith nor holding up its end of the social contract. It is disturbing that things have gotten so bad that is actually being considered.
It isn't something I'm in favor of at this point, but frankly Steemit seems to be doing its very best to push people toward that. I guess one might wonder if they have reasons to want it, or are really just THAT incompetent. I'm honestly not sure.
I've heard the word fork a lot recently also. I think it will just create a larger split.
Not sure I've seen a realistic proposal yet.
I think it is clear we should not have any expectation from SteemIt, Inc and move forward as if they are a large stakeholder.
A large (likely 50%+, but certainly at least 30%+) stakeholder who didn't buy in and doesn't contribute (sufficiently) is just a parasite who will not only dilute the good work of others but also depress the price for years with their continued selling. That doesn't strike me as realistic.
I'd likely just sell my stake for whatever I can salvage from it and move on to more promising projects if things don't turn around.
I'm very curious what you would consider a turnaround.
My impression is SteemIt Inc is doing what they know how to do.
If they knew how to do better they would.
It's just the way I see it. I am no longer holding out hope for better things when a live stream is too much of an expectation.
I think its possible they can hit some sort of stride in terms of development progress, particularly if they can follow through on the idea of not stretching too thin trying to do too much and just focus on the damn development.
It hasn't happened yet but I don't rule it out. There are some competent even brilliant developers there.
But no, I'm not holding my breath for it.
@smooth Didn't you buy $22,000 worth of steem at these prices last week?
I transferred that much from a known exchange account to one of my accounts but I wouldn't read too much into it.
Thx for your answer smooth,
Good to know there is some real disturbance in the force, we can all feel that...
Time will tell, I will have your back if needed.
thumbsup
Likewise mate.
Maybe they can lower their share voluntarily..... do an airdrop to steemians.... especialy to the active ones
Hey @smooth, I would never tag you lightly, there is a meeting tomorrow regarding technology with and without SteemIt, Inc's influence.
I don't know if you ever do voice, but maybe at least chat with us?
Anyway, would love to hear your input.. https://steemit.com/steem/@pennsif/sosdailynewsallyouneedtoknowaboutthestateofsteem19december2018-5p50lpibkj
no need for a reverse split they changed the upvote chargedown by 30% ALREADY BY MAKING 2 FULL UPVOTES INCREASING THE POWERDOWN PERCENTAGE TAKEN OFF FROM 2.5% TO 3.5% SO FOR A FULL RECHARGE IN 24 HOURS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE NOW 14.5 FULL UPVOTES A DAY DOWN FROM 18 !!!! That is a sh-tload of money being taken out of the pockets of everyone who rented delegation for long periods of time, bot owners, curators, authors....
The hosting costs were actually much less than what they let on....
THIS IS THE COST SAVINGS THEY WERE HIDING....I HAVE PAID FOR 14000 5 MINUTE PROCESSES A DAY ON aws AND THE COST WAS UNDER $900 A DAY, THAT MEANS ON THE COURSE OF A YEAR IT WAS LESS THAN $320K.
The $2 million cost of server operation was BS!!!
Anyone can do the math....
As a Steem (backup) witness, I am prepared to support the chain by whatever minimal support I can do + running the servers up for the foreseeable future without any revenue from the effort. I think many others also will do the same - but I can only speak for myself. I hope that answers the "whatever" comes scenario.
I can't comment on STEEM/SBD values as as markets and economics is not my area of expertise.
Sadly, that is a more direct way to say, what I am feeling as well. My point is why pretend we are getting any SMTs or upgrades. I don't understand why we are acting like we are going to get it.
I think it's unbelieve, hope I say that good on english.
I still can not grasp what is enfolding, sometimes I think, it can not be otherwise, it is so, that they plan this "shit" because you can't make this up. Looks more and more a planned hit and run job from the side of steemit inc. They ninja mined a huge stake, dropped a year 2000 blogging website, a beta... suck it all in, and after things get to hot under their feet (when the community asks innovation, new features and is demanding), spit it all out... and they will milk this cow until the end of time, at the expense of us, community and investors.
It's spooky that there is still no communications, not only from steemit inc. but also not from our top 20 witnesses, I surely hope they can find a way to speak with one voice and have a scenario ready, for the future,... but maybe, that's also whishfull thinking on my part.
We have more problems at hand, even when steemit inc drops out, witnesses should take over, but the state of the blockchain today demands some really nasty decisions, investments and fixes.
Even more important then this whole steemit inc. drama.
I
I don't think it was intentional, as in a plan, but it really doesn't matter if the result is the same.
If they hold the most stake it is hard to imagine they have the ability to "milk" the community. lol.
There was a communication today, you are commenting on it.
The top 20 witnesses might feel like they have to be careful what they say right now.
We are okay, we just can't rely on SteemIt Inc. That is all there is to it. No drama just a calm realization.
I understand the meaning, intention, plan...
Steemit inc. wants to change into a blockchain company. Same structure as block.one (EOS). So yes I agree, and that's also my take on the state of affairs, no drama, just calm realization.
And I am surely not sad because of the change of roles steemit inc. sees for themselves. I hope for some new kids on the block.
Time will tell, if steemit inc. with its huge stake will allow a new kid on the block... if they block this... I am sure we will fork our way forward. :)
Ned needs to donate Steemit as open source, not steem, let them work on the blockchain, And he needs to keep some Steem but divest most. I suggest a kickstarter campaign for a buy out for everything in the original management team except for 10%, With a closed end dividend for 5 years for them as long as they continue with the business and see a smooth transition. So if they do not want to continue they have a parachute.
LOL, imagine getting the attention SMTs from somebody like Anil Dash and including “realnedscott” in the twitter convo. Even telegramming him about it.
Guess who doesn’t feel follow on. Unless, of course, it wasn’t placed on the roadmap. The 2016 one.
There a million incidents like that. If you are expecting anything different at this point, that could be viewed as a sign of mental illness.
So true. Luckily I never expected anything from a “perennial reader”.
Nor did ever expect to find a dating post from a CEO who otherwise doesn’t communicate.
Im just playing around. I dont hold my breath about smts.
Posted using Partiko Android
STEEM blockchain can already handle tokens. In fact, @pocket-a by @biophil was the first token that was airdropped on Steemitians. Anybody could send POCKET with a comment. It was initially traded at Bitshares 100-200 per BTS. It is not maintained anymore. It is open source and anybody can launch a TOKEN right now if one wishes.
https://github.com/biophil/pocket
SMT should not be that hard. It will be probably released but delayed.
Probably... Isn't very inspiring and unfair to those developing projects.
Interesting about biophil's project, but if there is no place to trade it... ?
??? They are not working to make the blockchain more efficient, they are working to make steemit inc, more efficient...
Interesting take. but by making it cheaper for themselves they help the witnesses also.
True but I will reply below with a counterpoint as well.
We are satisfied with explanations, and explaining everything away we call knowledge. :)
Centralisation comes with a cost,
They thought to fix the cost part with HF20 and resource credits, that did not work out.
It's also not part of any roadmap anymore, heard nothing about it anymore.
Whatever they try, it's centralisation, and centralisation comes with a cost.
If you gonna take things of the blockchain, it's centralisation, and centralisation comes with a cost.
I'm not sure this is a matter of centralization directly but it is a matter of Steemit injecting its own operational priorities on to development priorities which is indeed a form of harmful centralization.
This is why I proposed that they shut down or spin off their own nodes (in an orderly manner) and only then undertake to optimize the code. I'm not aware of any other blockchain project where the developer team runs nodes for everyone else and it is fundamentally not a favorable model in terms of development supporting long term success.
There is a real tradeoff with RocksDB in that it will likely be a lot less efficient in terms of performance while reducing memory usage. That will have a long term cost in terms of scalability of transaction rate and then ultimately other complexity and maintainability issues (which is why graphene was designed with a non-blocking in-memory model for transactions validation in the first place).
It may turn out that this is a good tradeoff, but the problem is that neither demand for it nor any specification of requirements is coming from a broad community of people trying to run nodes and scale businesses who then feed back those diverse experiences to a neutral developer team. It is one company deciding that its own short term AWS bill should determine the course of the development roadmap for the entire blockchain, and that's a problem.
It sounds like the technical debt is as big as their stake.