RE: What I am looking for from the witnesses
When the block chain is functioning smoothly, your default position on accepting a hardfork should be "no".
This is my default position. And since STINC has demonstrated incompetence in the past and continues to bundle several large changes per hard fork (along with many smaller ones), it will remain my default position.
You should audit the code prior to forking.
Since STINC chooses to package massive amounts of code into each hard fork, this is a big ask from anyone auditing the proposed changes to the protocols. The first step should be to reduce the size and number of protocol changes, and to reject any proposals if...
- There is no actual problem in need of a “fix.” and
- Multiple large protocol changes are introduced in a single proposal.
If the changes are necessary and presented in the smallest package possible, then the code should be reviewed. And every witness in the top-20 should either have the required knowledge/experience to review it or hire someone who can.
After reviewing the code, it should be fully tested - and only then should it be proposed as a hard fork. So I agree with you on that as well.
Witnesses are being rewarded substantially for their role...
This is certainly true for the top-20, and somewhat true for the top 30-40. After that, the rewards aren’t much after server costs and time spent (especially when needing to fix things after STINC’s mistakes). Many witnesses below 60-70 are probably operating at around even or at a loss.
If anyone isn’t happy with how these hard forks are being accepted, feel free to remove your votes from those top witnesses and find better alternatives to take their place.
I can promise you this:
If I found myself in the top-20, I would certainly have my team reviewing and testing code, operating a full node, and engaging with the community. I already do the latter, but the others are cost prohibitive at #60 on the list.
If you want better witnesses, we’re out here. We just need the support. We hate seeing so much of our STEEM rewards going to waste on absent, unmotivated, and/or incompetent witnesses just as much as the rest of you. It’s frustrating...and sad. We can do so much better.
Thank you for the detailed feed back.
Yep. No doubt about that. You came to mind when I was typing that one.
True. I will need to make some accommodation in my expectations depending upon the witness rank. It would not be reasonable to have the exact same expectations of a 60+ witness as a top-20 witness. But even at 60+, I still want to vote for witnesses who demonstrate an interest and aptitude for governance of the Steem technology.