You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Update
??? They are not working to make the blockchain more efficient, they are working to make steemit inc, more efficient...
??? 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.