This is time to show your opinions on HF17!
Vote any if you like, and downvote any if you don't like to see. (Upvote = agree) All comments decline payout.
- Remove Posting Rate Limit
- The comment depth limit has been increased to 255
- Comments can now be permanently edited
- Comments are now paid out independent of their discussion
- All comments are paid out 7 days after creation and there is no longer a second payout window
- There is now a comment reward fund separate from posts
- All payouts now look at the prior 30 days of payouts to determine the share of the reward rather than the current pending rshares
- Reward Balance
- Comment Reward Beneficiaries
- Delegated Steem Power
- Accounts can be created with a smaller fee and an initial Steem Power delegation
- PoW is being removed
Any discussions are more than welcome!
If you are hard to find options, sort comments by age
Add: Ypu can choose MULTIPLE items.
Items are from @liondani's post
vote a little
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Can you add something here to differentiate between "as-is" and with a fix for the 'end of window' lockout issue (https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/900). I support the change, but only with a fix for issue 900.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay, but I am on the road now. Will do later
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If that's an issue, back 17 and let's schedule your proposed lockout fix for HF18. We don't have the luxury of time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I share the opinion that while a lot of these things may be good it's too much in one release.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
2. The comment depth limit has been increased to 255
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What does 255 mean?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's 200+50+5 and 28-1. This number is special because it is the biggest number that can fit into a byte
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
nested comments can go up to 255 as opposed to 6 right now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, just click on the upvote again and your vote will be changed to 0 weight.
Edit: But what have you misunderstood? Upvoting the post does nothing with the comments. The comments what are count in this poll. For e.g. I UV the post to make it more visible, and will vote for the comments later (bookmarked).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very good idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Love that one
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Comment depth limit now causes frustration, annoyance, and make hard to follow threads with the 'mention workaround'. If there isn't any enormous drawback (I don't know about any), it's an easy decision for me. I would accept this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
10. Delegated Steem Power
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
you should be able to reverse it just like you made it,....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Im sorry....what does delegated sp mean exactly? Does this mean we can give away SP ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It means you can "lend" someone else SP.
I could delegate 1000 SP to you and then you could use it to vote and earn curation rewards.
Currently the lender see's no benefits in the existing implementation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
or rent out SP, sounds good to me
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So there would be the option to "lend out" for a specified period as well as the ability to actually give away?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what's in it for the lendee?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what if we changed it to this proposal?
https://steemit.com/witness-category/@fyrstikken/voting-power-to-the-people-and-curation-rewards-to-the-investors-please-bookmark-and-read-later-if-you-are-busy (Man I wish we had 255 comment depth now) The "experiment" has shown that this work
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes.
If you can give it away permanently or just lend it out I would think the lendee would need to attain some form of monetary profit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The lender see's no benefit.
The lendee can then use that SP to vote and earn curation rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok, maybe i've confused who is the lender vs lendee. If I lend to someone, I get no benefit. So why do it?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@fyrstikken I'm not sure I followed it all, but sounds good ;-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This will be interesting to see, I think its a good thing but I can imagine ways it could be abused.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
9. Comment Reward Beneficiaries
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If we want (and I want) 3rd parties to use Steem like Disqus, and want developers build great apps, I think this feature is a must. We should provide incentives for growth, and this is a simple and fair way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
1. Remove Posting Rate Limit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
the hardfork removes the 4 per day post limit from the protocol level, but steemit.com web site can implement UI upgrades to deal with spam and users who abuse no posting limit, the goal of hf17 is to simplify what happens on the blockchain, making it run more efficient, and put the complicated solutions on the web site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Don't like just removing it. I think it should be based on rep. This would allow established members to post more while keeping spam down from people just doing copy/paste fishing for votes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Reputation is not a consensus level feature of the blockchain. Meaning it is derived from state, but does not impact state. We have no plans on making it consensus. There were bugs in the bandwidth rate limiting algorithm that have since been fixed. Normal use should not be affected, but spamming most definitely will.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That might be a good next step - but I think removing it and seeing what happens might be a first good step!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
People with bots posting thousands of youtube vids a day comes to mind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe there's a second layer of limitations using the "bandwidth" values associated with each account that would hopefully prevent this.
Though I seem to remember somewhere that was getting removed as well. It would be nice to have some clarity on what would prevent this when the post rate limit is removed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree @jesta
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good idea @fubar-bdhr. More rep = the more you can post
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm against this. Recently I've seen some users post 40 times a day and make $2( mostly autovote) on every post, without the posting rate limit these users would make $80 a day for posting very average content with no effort.If everyone start doing this the site will be full of garbage stuff. The limit encourages users to write quality content.
I would agree with extending it a bit ( 5-10 posts) but not removing it entirely.
edit: This feature should be called "remove earning limit" as it does not restrict people from posting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the post limit should be based on Rep
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The main justification for it is that the current model works well for 'blogging' but it is not very well suited for twitter type content. The idea is to put the burden of allocating rewards properly on the community / voters. In theory, if someone is posting a lot of crap posts and getting constantly upvoted - users should be able to detect that and downvote.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@timcliff the downvote can do so only those who have a higher level ... if so can not be said that, in theory, everyone can settle the question .. ..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is not completely accurate. A downvote affects the post payout based solely on SP. It only affects the reputation though if the person has a higher reputation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a bot problem and/or autovote problem, not a posting limit problem.
There are good ways to do more than 4 posts / days, as timcliff say.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In a situation where on certain apps people would post frequently(like instagram) i believe it would be preferable to remove this limit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agreed, for scalability, no post limit is a must or make the post limit based on Rep.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Absolutely contrary. You will see a lot of junk among the topics
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I fear that some users could feel the "pressure" to produce as many as possible articles (to earn as much as possible) so that the quality of the articles may decrease. We may see even more "one-image-posts" with very short texts ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How about paying a small fee (aka 'need of promotion') for every post above a certain limit instead? Let's say, every user has one or two posts free per day and after that needs to promote the post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great idea to me @shortcut - I would be in for that!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not a fan of this at all, we have enough spam as it is
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Click on upvote again, and you will see an option to remove your vote
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
3. Comments can now be permanently edited
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is the way it always should have been. Of course it should be accompanied by an easy to use history feature to see every edit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Amen
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually I am rather often editing my comments and articles if I spot mistakes, but the problem with being able to do that permanently could be that if you answer in a discussion to a comment and later the comment will be changed, your answer doesn't suit to the comment anymore ... discussions could be falsified afterwards. I know, everthing is saved in the blockchain, but ... in practice it could be difficult for the normal user to verify everything.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with @jaki01
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think showing post history is the UI's duty. Also, I would start a brainstorming about votes, which is a harder problem. Imagine someone make a successful post, then editing it to be the opposite of the former one. The votes would still remain, showing many like the post, which were not true.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not just for correcting typos, errors, but good for avoiding legal actions (many times it's enough to delete contents that could be attacked legally). Since not everybody anon here (and not will be), I would allow editing a post without expiration.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
4. Independent comments are now paid out independent of their discussion
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The main reason for this change is so that comments have an equal opportunity to collect rewards. With the current implementation, if there is 5 minutes left on the parent post's payout window and someone makes a great comment - it only has 5 minutes to collect upvotes/rewards. The change will allow it to have its own countdown clock, which starts when the comment is created. Seems like a no-brainer 'yes' :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pays out in 4 hours?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It means each individual comment will have it's own individual payout cycle, much like each pays out on it's own cycle. Current I believe comments pay out when the original post pays out.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You cannot comment after the post's payout now. Note that, there is a second, 30 days payout in the system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But with the HF proposal to make final payouts after 7 days - there will no longer be a 30-day second payout, right? So if the comments payouts are separate, they would also have final payout at 7 days. I'm assuming that no new comments would be allowed after original post payout then, but have not seen any wordage about it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@merej99 (nesting limit)
Yes, after HF17, only one 7 days long payout period remains.
Since comments count as individual posts in the new system (as you have said, they have separate payout window), I don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow comments after the posts payout.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why now it is that it works as payment for comments?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't see the point in this, other than maybe to slow the the amount of steem given out daily
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The amount of STEEM given out via the rewards pool will not change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agreed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This has my vote because it improves the incentives for continued discussion on a post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
11. Accounts can be created with a smaller fee and an initial Steem Power delegation
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is a fee now?
Last I checked SP was still being given out for account creation...
I guess weve passed that stage?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There's always been a fee. Steemit.com has just been paying the fee everytime someone signs up.
The old (fee based) model still exists and isn't going away, but this is a new way of creating accounts by paying a smaller fee and then delegating something like 11x the fee as SP to the account.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The word fee is somewhat misleading. The amount of the 'fee' ends up as SP in the new account. It would be better termed 'initial SP balance'
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@smooth , you seem like a balanced representative of steem. I've always thought so. Voted for you as a witness.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for the vote. I'm not a representative of anyone other than myself. I'm happy to have your support in any case. I mean as a witness I do try to follow the views of those who vote for me, but it is more of an informal thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@smooth
speaking of views - someone left something about it in your chat
please check thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
8. Reward Balance
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe this is a requirement for the multi-chain parallelism a.k.a "Fabric" they are working on. Therefore it has my vote. I defer to the blockchain devs on this one.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not enough information.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agreed. I still have no idea what the hell this means.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I thrice enhance that notion!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There will be a new rewards balance on each account, much like your normal balance and savings balance. So 3x "balances" for each liquid currency.
All rewards will be deposited into this new rewards balance, which will then have to be withdrawn in order to transfer.
The reason behind this change I've been told is for scalability, though I'm not 100% sure how changing which balance it goes into accomplishes that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's due to serialization. Presently, a consensus node that cares about "can user x spend y amount of STEEM" must process every single post and every single comment, in order, to know if that's possible or not.
Exchanges, for example, only care about your main balance for sending/receiving payments. They would not need to process each and every post and comment.
It's also a matter of parallelism; the balances can be calculated in parallel and only require synchronization when the rewards balance is transferred to your liquid balance, which should be about a 10x reduction in calculations for the liquid balance.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would be interested to know if there is a good reason for implementing this because adding yet another wallet will only add complexity and confuse users even more, we should be aiming at reducing all these balances not increase them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a required architectural change for the blockchain to support scaling in the future. If it doesn't happen now, it will need to happen someday for us to support mainstream user growth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Too much interdependence between subsystems. The reward balance allows us to track account balances without needing to track content or votes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What problem are you correcting?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It significantly reduces the amount of operations that must be performed to run the blockchain, which reduces the resource requirements that are necessary to run an instance of the blockchain. This is intended to help third-party developers who are interested in developing blockchain applications, as the barrier to entry (for having powerful hardware) is much lower.
It is a small inconvenience to the user, but it will be a big + for the network.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'd like to hear more about the problem that is being solved.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I won the whale vote contest - watch out! Good things coming!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do tell,...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Too many balances will confuse users IMO
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In fact ... you have to simplify. Steemit is already too complex and this complexity keeps out a lot of people .. The other company that pay (even very little), however, are very simple to understand ... I will actually ask an effort to simplify all the things ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, not clear why they are doing it
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
12. PoW is being removed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
PoW gives a person who is not popular a chance to be a witness once.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I invite @steemed to explain us the benefits of keeping 2 PoW slots
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Been dead for months really.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand that PoW is no longer providing much security for the network, but I've seen at least one talk by @ned on youtube where he highlights the ability to mine an anonymous account as a selling point. I think that capability should be retained.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You could do the same via a username dedicated for creating anonymous accounts by paying it's fees.
If it's a 3rd party, you could pay for it with a cryptocurrency that offers anon transactions.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There's already a 3rd party doing this (I forget the web site offhand), but I think there should continue to be a way to do it without the need to trust a 3rd party.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's AnonSteem. You don't need to trust in the 3rd party.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
When you send them your BTC, you need to trust that you'll get an account in return.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I should write my previous comment as:
The website that you may know is AnonSteem.
You would find a 3rd party if there is a demand, that you don't need to trust. Chose a service that offer escrow payment, and trust only the escrow provider. You should chose a high profile one, who would never ruin their goodwill for some dollar.
If this trust is too much, I don't recommend Steem, since it isn't trustless. The blockchain is in the hands of the elected witnesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that the CEO of the company has been making public statements promoting the ability to mine an anonymous account without spending funds. For example, see here at about 15:32.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(Maybe I'm stupid because I haven't read the white paper? ) .... What is PoW??
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Proof of Work - or mining.
It has problems right now and has been that way for the last few versions. The decision was made to remove it rather than constantly spend time trying to fix it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks...forgive me for my ignorance...I had heard @craig-grant mention this a while back as well.
How will this affect the price of steem and how will it affect the steemit community in your opinion?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think it would affect users or the price seriously. No one can PoW mine now (beside the 1-2 user who found out how to bypass the rules), it's a depreciated part of the system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But if noone is mining doesn't that mean no more steem is being created? aka limited supply, high demand = price increase?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Steem is being created from our blog posts, comments, and curation activities on Steemit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
? How does that CREATE a currency?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's like "mining" bitcoin, except we mine Steem by creating content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@jetsa makes sense :] cheers
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Creating content doesn't actually "mine" anything per say.
The "mining" happens currently by traditional PoW mining, as well as DPOS through the witnesses. Witnesses/miners produce blocks, and a certain percentage of each block reward is put into the rewards pool, which is then distributed to the people creating content and curating.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Really....but if that is the case why did we need traditional miners in the first place?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't know. I believe Steem is getting rid of PoW (traditional mining) in the next update.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
yes...and how do you think that will affect the platform as well as the currency?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think removing PoW (mining) won't have a negative impact on the platform, since there are plenty of people on Steemit. Steemit is just one app for the Steem blockchain. I believe there will be more "apps" that connect to the Steem blockchain.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
STEEM is not limited, it has a 9.5% yearly inflation rate that will descend with time. PoW was there for those who wanted to stay outside of the politics that a witness has to play to be successful (aka get the most votes). PoW could provide additional security if there are a lot of miners, but with mining monopoly it's just another 'witness'. We don't get any advantage maintaining it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So how does an inflation rate descend? ( im clueless about economics)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That 9.5% will be reduced by 0.5% yearly by the code.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Those rewards could be better spent. We have enough witnesses, and being a witness or contributing to the network is good for distribution. We could save developer time, make Steem simpler, explain Steem easier. It's not that great selling point, but Steem would be a really green tech.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is no need for external PoW - it has been dead for months, sign up as a witness instead.
edit: Also removing PoW removes a risk-factor (not that we know of any) so just kill it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just click on the vote again. By the way PoW is mining. We mine with words. So removing PoW is removing people being able to mine the currency with computers like other crypto currencies. In reality, this is not needed by the steem blockchain at all. Yet PoW = Proof of Work which is related to mining rigs and using devices/computers to mine crypto currency.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thank you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
7. All payouts now look at the prior 30 days of payouts to determine the share of the reward rather than the current pending rshares
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Does not bother or effect me at the moment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not really sure about this one. Can somebody please explain?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The current algorithm looks at all posts and gives each one their fair share as if every post were to get paid out right now. i.e. If your post has 1% of rshares2, you get 1% of the reward fund.
The new algorithm looks at past posts and pays out based on previous claims to the reward fund. i.e. If your post has 1 million rshares on it and a post was paid out an hour ago (that also had 1 million rshares) got paid 10 STEEM, you could expect to be paid around 10 STEEM.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
how about people who has not posted anything in 30 days or makes a killer-post on day 30?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This algorithm is a global and is not limited to a single user's behavior/experience. It would run into some weird behavior if nobody posted anything in 30 days, but we don't expect it to happen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for taking the time to answer me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
6. There is now a comment reward fund separate from posts
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My reservation about this feature is a problem most people will have never seen, but nowadays, with bots voting on most posts, there is already a significant incentive for whales to vote on comments instead of posts to gain more curation rewards. My regular curator noticed this and pointed it out to me, but I didn't feel it was a good idea to vote mostly on comments just to game the reward system. But with this further tilt of the incentives, I feel it's likely that this feature will lead to abuse that has not been anticipated. I would rather delay this feature until the reward curve has been adjusted to reduce this potential abuse.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If you were already interested in voting on comments before the change, I'd say go for it! I think the whole reason that the change was proposed in the first place was because users/whales were not voting on comments enough. If more people did it, it would remove the need for the change (IMO).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I've started voting on comments more, although I only vote with a portion of my stake most of the time, because the typical comments isn't worth $30.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
$30 when the price was 0.06$, and all whales were voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, if I didn't think I'd get burnt at the stake for it, I'd be tempted to see just how much it would be. Maybe clayop can make another of those non-reward comments and I could do a full upvote on it as an experiment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You could try it once and then just remove your vote right after. I'm curious to see what it is too :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
hey hey boys - no tsunamis please :D
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The feature has already been implemented and tested, and we'd like to move on immediately to the reward curve in 18. If it's abused, we will see such soon, and address it quickly in 18 or 19 (or via other means).
Fear of minor abuses of rewards allocation isn't something to worry about; we're doing regular hardforks and if there is a serious problem with any change, it will be reverted or improved quickly. The point of the comment rewards pool is to directly address one of our community's biggest existential threats: our retention rate for new users. It's a lot easier to comment than to write a new post, and by ensuring that users who only comment can also earn meaningful rewards should improve that a lot.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It had been anticipated that's why it was proposed it would be without curation rewards. I would love to see a reward pool for comments only, no curation rewards, because that would create a lot of reason for non bloggers to be here, and they will attract real investors.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You may be right that this would work, and I'm aware it was originally proposed without curation rewards. My concern about having no curation rewards from an incentive point of view is that now bad actors would be incentivized to upvote comments from their sockpuppets because they no longer can profit from curation rewards aspect (which normally acts as a potential magnifier on their reward if they vote for stuff other people like).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Personally I don't think curation ever discouraged users from using their vote to upvote themselves. It's one of the perks of having steem power, and we already see it frequently used.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It was proposed without curation rewards, but that changed, and if HF17 went live today it would have had curation rewards:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/774#issuecomment-282416981
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, I'm actually writing up a post now on why we should support it without curation rewards. Seemed totally logical to me before steemit inc even made it clear they would be removing the curation rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A whole new group of people might not like that idea because it's a 38% cut to curation rewards as a whole.
The whole thing is such a sticky situation!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The issue is not "how should we design this feature", but "now that this feature has been modeled, designed, implemented, and tested, should we block its release"?
If there is abuse of the new model, we can mitigate that in turn in the future, either via downvote bots, social action, or modifying incentives/disincentives in a future hardfork.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We need @steemcleaners or @cheetah to unmask the cheeters/gamers that endanger the game, imo.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think this is the most absurd change in hf17. It's far too micro-managey to me; it's way more likely to create perverse incentives and unintended consequences than to help solve a problem. A problem, imo, that doesn't really exist.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Retention of new users is absolutely a problem, and a looming existential one, at that.
This is, in my opinion, one of the two most important features in this release.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do not like this one as is. I think with the new comment depth (the existing one discouraged me from even commenting most time) along with the possible changing of the reward curve need to be studied more first.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
best thing about this feature is potentially taking away 38% of the reward pool from bots, as it would be hard for bots to effectively vote on comments
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Click it again to cancel, or click the "flag" on the right side to change it to a downvote.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
great idea!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My voting weight is too low to make much difference because giving out those pennies is addictive when the content is this level of good.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I won the whale vote contest - watch out! Good things coming!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Upvoting what I like and not voting the rest, wanna avoid downvoting at all @clayop 😎
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know that none of you really know who I am but I have to tell you, nobody has time for this. Witnesses and dissenters need to get on board or risk getting left behind.
It's witnesses job to make sure steemit doesn't break, not to create riffs and dissent amount the community, holding up important production. We need to move forward, it's quintessential to our long term growth and productivity.
Please understand that time is of the essence.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Funny: it seems @leesunmo immediately balances my flags even if in this case a flag is only an opinion if the idea is useful or not .......
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
interesting scenario
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice idea :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Maybe it happened just accidentally though - no idea. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
이런 젠장.... 나는 모두 보고싶어요... 댓글에 추천한걸을 취소할 방법이 있습니까?
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent idea
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Bad :d
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i think PoW should stay. I have never benefited personally from it but when you have an old club of people who vote for each other only, it is nice to have a way to get your foot in the door.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is already gone; there is a bug in the current PoW implementation that renders it meaningless. This just removes it to clean up the code, as it is presently superfluous.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Make PoW Great Again :d
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How bout just do one thing at a time?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hardforks have a real and tangible cost. There is first the matter of time spent communicating the proposals, discussing the change(s) with the community, and integrating the feedback. Then there is the burden on third-party users of the software, such as exchanges and witnesses, that need to spend time or money on testing and integration and deployment.
I agree that there's too much in this one, but we also want to err on the side of bigger batches because each release incurs substantial overhead and we don't have the luxury of time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Are we experimenting a start of democracy, here, on Steemit ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @clayop, I just stopped back to let you know your post was one of my favourite reads and I included it in my Steemit Ramble. You can read what I wrote about your post here.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think to make this vote, more details about this point need to be made. Specifically, the description should be extended to read: "and the payout extension period to prevent voting abuse will be removed". AFAIK, this is the main objection to this point, not the part mentioned above.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Payout every day is what makes it fun to post every day. I think this 7 days needs to be split up into day1 payout and day7 payout - it can still use the same curve - just delete the difference that has already been paid out on day 1 when the day 7 payout comes and we will have a brilliant solution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Posts should always be eligible for payout. Window really doesn't seem to matter much. Most posts are voted on withing the first hour with the exception of really active ones or ones that have made it to the front of trending There is no reason new people coming in and voting on old content should not be allowed or even discouraged.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I brought that up during recent discussions as well - I think having unlimited, repeating payout cycles for posts makes a lot of sense. If I write a technical article about how to build a website, the first week it might earn $10, but it remains valuable and should be able to start a new payout cycle whenever more people start voting on it weeks or months into the future.
An additional idea thrown out by someone (sorry, don't remember who) would also include that the account has to have enough weight for a payout (0.02) to start a new payout cycle.
There may be some avenues for abuse with this approach - but nothing you can't do already just by creating new posts everyday. If anything, by having a single payout window, we're encouraging people to repost the same content over and over on the blockchain.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
THIS ^^^
It deserves a dedicated post ! Please make a post about it @jesta
It really deserves more attention!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This exemplifies the reason why design-by-committee is doomed to languishing failure.
Engineering is trade-offs, and the best trade-off based on the current engineering constraints is a single payout window. Everything else (two payout windows, unlimited repeating payout windows, et c) impacts scalability significantly.
There are regular, deep discussions in our engineering organizations about these tradeoffs, and it would be a full-time job for several people just to communicate the minutiae adequately (to people who mostly haven't read the code).
At some point, unless you want to come and sit in our office full time (or understand the c++ consensus code in full), changes like this are going to have to boil down to "trust us, we do this for a living". I think there about 6-8 people in total on all of Steemit that have qualified opinions about the "how" and the "why" of the engineering decisions of the actual implementation of these changes.
Alternately, go and read the code, and you won't have to trust us. It's open source for a reason. :)
We are gearing up to support a lot more users and posts, and have identified the scalability chokepoints and have a plan to eliminate most of them. This is crucial to that plan, at the expense of a tiny dent in UX (it would be lovely to keep 24h payouts, and payout indefinitely, but those implementations simply will not scale as we grow).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is an important comment. Frankly, I don't believe in decentralized design-by-committee. It is painfully obvious that a small team with a singular vision is a much more efficient at a creative pursuit of any kind, including software development. Open source allows contributors to fill in the gaps, point out the bugs, but there needs to be a focused vision. Steemit Inc. got the platform running rapidly within a couple of months, while competitors are yet to show up with a usable product after years. That was obviously a result of a small team working in a focused manner. Since then, progress has been far too slow.
I have read through your comments in this thread and you make compelling arguments for each. This is enough detail to let us trust you - we don't need to know the exact code, though of course it helps that it's up for examination.
Here's the significant blunder on your part - much of this communication should have happened in January, and not one day after the hardfork was due. Or at worst, last week when witnesses weren't able to reach consensus. I look back to the original proposal post from early January with considerably concern from the community, yet there's little to no feedback from anyone at Steemit, Inc. Worse still, you went ahead and coded features that the community was clearly against, and no one bothered to argue otherwise... until it's too late (now). Had clear communication like ones you have provided above been done then, we would have saved weeks in time we can't afford.
My recommendation would be to clarify and communicate every detail with the community when you make your initial announcement proposal for the next Hardfork, and make sure there is consensus, before you get down to serious coding. This way, the hardfork will go through smoothly once the code is ready. It's fair to say we have lost months overall due to miscommunication.
I hope all of this will be part of the new Steem development procedure that you have teased. Eagerly awaiting your post for the same.
Keep up the good work, and hope to see a faster development pace in the future!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree 100%. All I can say on the matter is that I wasn't managing the backend development team then. I am now. People who know me know that I don't work like that. :)
A-fucking-men.
That is exactly the plan, and we're already revising the drafts of the announcement post for the new process. To do it any other way wastes your time and ours. There will be a schedule, so you will know what happens and when, well in advance.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
[Nesting limit, can't wait for that to go away!]
It's very encouraging to hear all of this. Thank you for replying - awaiting details on your announcement post. All the best, I'm now optimistic about the future development pace.
Beginning with getting Hardfork 17 pass, of course. It can only be done with clear communication with the witnesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@jesta I like the idea of having unlimited payout cycles . Like you said it make sense, if people on youtube were paid only for 7 days's views they would post a lot of clickbait stuff,repost a lot of video too and would not put the same amount of effort in creating content which will result in lower quality.
My only concern with this feature is that if there is unlimited payout cycles then the daily reward will be shared between more and more posts as time goes by which will reduce payouts for newly created post, not sure if a valid concern but something to think about...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
When the quality of an old post drive users to vote it then it deserves it .... so why not.
I prefer rewards go to good quality posts instead of new "crap" posts... That would also give the motivation to write much better!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like it. Couldnt that feature be an arbitrary variable depending in the platform its been created on?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It could be - but regardless of the platform, all of the posts still draw from the same rewards pool. Any platform not using the "unlimited payout cycles" variable would likely not see as much activity as those who did.
But it would be great to see some platform independent variables being set :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like the idea but I have a hard time thinking of the ramification when the network scales.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@cryptoctopus - There's still a finite rewards pool no matter how large the network scales, and the rewards balance change also helps improve how the network will scale with more users.
I don't have all the answers, and I also have a hard time thinking of the ramifications. But it would be a good problem to have :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There are two problems with this:
I would prefer to add some form of 'easy tipping' to the UI. I feel that this would be an acceptable way of providing rewards to old content. On traditional websites, I would argue that most users would not tip - but on a site like Steemit where there are already lots of rewards "flying around" - there is a lot less of a burden to send a few STEEM/SBD coins someone's way if you like their content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't know that either of those are actually problems in my mind.
Both of these situations can already occur in the current system by simply reposting the same content in a new post. These wouldn't be new problems, it would just prevent bloat in the blockchain by encouraging repeat behavior on the same content, as opposed to reposting :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Another reason to vote again on the same content is that it may be updated, expanded or otherwise edited. A good part of the the idea of allowing edits forever is to encourage maintaining/improving existing and reducing the need to repost it.
[nested]
That isn't possible. The decision to "activate" a post would be a consensus decision so the voting that led to that happening would have to be part of the consensus state.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting view.
Another part that I've heard though (don't know that it still applies) is that there is a cost to keep all of the active posts active as part of the voting consensus.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@timcliff Yeah I've heard that as well, though I imagine posts wouldn't be considered "active" unless they received enough votes to "activate" the post itself. I hope with some of the recent optimizations (moving out of ram to disk, the payout to rewards balances, etc) that a hit like this wouldn't be a reason to deny the change.
There are definitely some potential hurdles/problems, but I think the pros would outweigh the cons and shift the overall dynamic in a positive direction. The life cycle of a blog post is much different than what our payout cycles currently allow and we should try to do something to encourage long term content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Infinite payouts causes bloat in the memory size of
steemd. RAM is several orders of magnitude more expensive than disk, as you know.Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Spot on here, I couldn't have said it better myself!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This should be an arbitrary variable depending on the app. This feature may box STEEM into a certain type of platform. The current behavior is only gathered from 1 UIX.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree what I would like to see is a short default lifetime with the ability of the poster or app to extend the time by paying a fee or using more bandwidth allowance. If you can post one every seven days for a month, you should be able to make one post and have it stay active for a month. The cost to the system for the latter is actually lower yet the current (and proposed) rules only allow the former.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the devs should take @jesta's suggestion into consideration. Having a continuous payout cycle is a powerful idea. That being said, I think the shorter term payout is a "sticky" feature that brings people back to the site. 24 hours is closer to "instant" gratification than 7 days. In 7 days, someone might not even remember to come back and check out how their post is doing. But if you are providing a shorter term payment window (24 hours), I think it is more likely to stay on their mind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Having a continuous payout cycle is also a good way to require an unbounded amount of memory to run
steemd. There are engineering trade-offs here which we dive deeply on.Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
24 hour payout window makes Steemit much more exciting
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
is this applied to just comments as stated or posts too?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It applies to posts and comments.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thank you... Just comments I'd be okay with as discussions can carry on for a few days but the post, not so much in agreement
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would vote yes to this if the period was still extendable to avoid last minute whale (or bot) votes. I also think it could be shorter, perhaps from 5-7 days.
Bloggers don't expect all their readers to read in the first 2 days, so I agree that the window for receiving rewards should be wider.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not my favorite feature, but I support this because I think it will make external promotion possible. People will promote their posts outside of Steemit and that should help bring more people here. We need to look beyond Steemit's details and see the larger picture.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How about this idea: OP gets a fraction of the payout of the comments. Then starting a huge discussion would be profitable.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The Op of every comment also from their child comments!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This was actually how it was designed in the whitepaper :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'd have to think about it and discuss this more, but offhand it sounds like a really good idea. You even could consider giving community moderators some cut to stimulate engagement also.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Another way to make external promotion (and longer term) would be repeatable payout cycles on a single post. You're right, this does help it, but making content viable forever would have a much larger impact.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, it also would enable FAQ content, Wikipedia stuff, timeless writing or photos, and so forth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It absolutely would :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree .. It should be possible to reward those who bring out Steem. Have you thought about this thing ??
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Does not bother or effect me at the moment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think it would be better that the current
24h.+1month gets >>>> 24h.+1week
(2 payout windows just 1month>>>1week)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What @jesta says makes much more sense!
https://steemit.com/poll/@clayop/poll-your-opinions-on-hardfork-17-features#@jesta/re-fubar-bdhr-re-clayop-re-poll-your-opinions-on-hardfork-17-features-05-20170321t045108674z
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I like it to find great somewhat older articles sometimes and are still able to reward the author ... But maybe the long time span has some disadvantages I am just not aware of?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit