The Hardfork is upon us. A (hopefully) layman&#x27;s review of the HF20 post from steemitblog

stellabelle (75) · 7 years ago

shrewd indeed. nice consolidation write up. i am a bit out of the loop due to working on slothicorn development....

$0.55

clumsysilverdad (64) · 7 years ago

i like that name... slothicorn

$0.00

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

You keep on keeping on with the Slothiness! I will try to keep my ear to the ground and will let you know if anything really news worthy happens. hahaha

$0.00

doctorvee (49) · 7 years ago

This is war... So the bots are going down???

$0.55

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

No. Sorry... Bots will not be going down, to my knowledge. But if they do not adapt to the new 15 minute reward curve, hopefully human curators will get more of the reward than the Bots do. This is more of an action to (probably) limit the rewards being collected by "sleeping whales" who have set up some form of curation trail to vote at 25-30 minutes. Now human curators will have a window to get their vote in before those big automatic votes come in and get some curation reward out of it.

$0.00

money-dreamer (57) · 7 years ago

The biggest edge that humans have against bots is the connections they can make with other users. Bot's usually can't do that very well.

$0.00

vadimvinnichuk (46) · 7 years ago

You are shrewd.

$0.53

2 votes

xr-hammergaming (71) · 7 years ago

Thanks for the breakdown pal. In all honesty, I'm still trying to understand parts on this platform and I find It very helpful :)

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

Well I am happy to try to answer specific questions if you have any. Feel free to comment with them and let me know what I can do to help. I know there is a LOT to grasp.

One thing you might want to do is check out This Post which is full of links to helpful posts for different things around steem. It may prove useful to you!

$0.00

money-dreamer (57) · 7 years ago

These all sound great.

I would like to see the 7 day limit on author/curation/comment rewards go away. It should gradually decrease over time, but I think many old articles that are very well written are not paid attention to because there is no way to earn off of them. It is still possible to comment/upvote to get visibility on these old posts. Further, authors are discouraged from fixing up old posts because they receive little reward for doing so.

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

That's a difficult bridge to cross. If you leave rewards open, do you also then delay payout? What do you set payout back to? For a lot of people I think they wish payout came earlier than the 7 days as it is. You have to walk a tight rope here with respect to the reward pool.

$0.00

money-dreamer (57) · 7 years ago

The author payouts could be every 3 days with a minimum of something like 0.001 Steem value.

$0.00

clumsysilverdad (64) · 7 years ago

I didn't read it all, but noted some good points, ty. "changes are part of laying the groundwork for getting the blockchain ready for SMTs", sounds solid. So when is 20 happening, approximately?

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

They did not give an exact time frame, though they did say the release candidate would be ready for the first of the year. Then they have to get all of the witnesses to upgrade their servers once they provide the release candidate to the witnesses for execution.

Soon is really the best answer I can give you on that one.

$0.00

fabiyamada (64) · 7 years ago (edited)

That Steve is a troublemaker u.u xD
Thanks for writing this article or I would have never notice ;)

stefandimic (40) · 7 years ago

Resourceful as always! Thanks for update, good read!

creativesoul (59) · 7 years ago (edited)

Thank you for the layman's review...and saving us from reading the rocket science!
I consider myself up to date on the upcoming changes now. <3

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

hahaha. Don't take my word for it! I am not exactly a professor in Steemiology! I HOPE I covered all the bases. But I could have gotten some of it wrong.

$0.00

creativesoul (59) · 7 years ago

Well...I still figure you can't have got it terribly wrong ;)

$0.00

aussieninja (62) · 7 years ago

Thanks for all of this... I'm not sure who would flag you because I didn't know any of this was happening and if I did know I most certainly wouldn't understand it.

I don't feel like any of these changes would really affect me one way or another, but the main thing I got from this hilariously fireworked article is what a hard fork was... in my head I thought it was where someone took a copy of the open source code and went in an entirely new direction... I didn't realize it was just a new version number... slightly disappointed but much more informed.

Thanks for this!!

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

Well it just seems like every time a new update comes out EVERYBODY posts basically a copy of the update to try to earn some rewards. I think this is just barely a shade under plagiarism honestly. But I tried to put my own spin on it so that it felt more unique. Cheetah didn't come by, so maybe I'm okay. haha

As to the forking, what you describe is also a hard fork. So it gets complicated. The hard fork you are talking about is more when groups of individuals disagree about the hard fork and instead of the entire blockchain taking the hard fork, you have one group who take the hard fork and one group who stay on the old version, thus creating two different chains.

For Steem this is really a big key to your Witness voting. A Fork cannot be implemented until the Top 20 witnesses upgrade to the new version. Period, end of story. 19 witnesses updated? Sorry, we're still on version 19. So if any of the Top 20 witnesses were to go dormant, we would be stuck until we managed to rally the vote to knock them out of a top 20 position for someone who will take the new version.

In theory Steem could Hard Fork into two versions I suppose.... but I don't know the technical side of that.

$0.00

aussieninja (62) · 7 years ago

Wellllllllll, us noobs don't follow those everybodys... I can't speak for all newbies but we only care about words that are simple and gifs that are amazing.

I actually did some research after writing this comment and yes, came to the conclusion that I wasn't wrong... but I wasn't aware that forking was also regarded as a new version. Thanks for that.. it had been skewing my reading of cryptocurrency updates.

In the event that Top 20 witnesses do go dormant, what happens then? Surely enough whales would request the community to update their witness votes and/or vote someone new in. I've only used 5 votes so far, so I'm sure there are heaps of people that could make significant change with some guidance.

I expect at some point there will be at least another version of Steem... if it becomes massive and a hugely influential social media platform, I'm sure the Googles, CNNs, Disneys would want their own platform where they can control the votes better.

$0.00

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

Well for news about the platform, the important follows are @ned, @sneak, @steemitblog, @steemdevs. If you want to follow the other creator who is no longer part of the project then @dan and @dantheman are accounts to follow too.

Witness voting is tied in to how much SP you have, so ultimately, our votes as minnows don't mean a whole lot. Here is how the voting looks for the top 50 witnesses. This chart is from steemreports.com:

Those Big Dark Blue Lines are the voting power of @freedom who pretty much can single handedly make or take Top 20 status to or from a witness. the @freedom vote is proxied to @pumpkin, so Pumkin is doing the witness voting for freedom. Pumpkin is an active witness vote changer, so if a Top 20 really went dormant, he or she would lose that @freedom vote in a hurry.

The light blue at the end encompasses ALLLLL the rest of us. So when we combine a lot of minnows, we can be as powerful as Freedom, so I am not trying to say our votes don't count. But when it comes to removing a top 20 witness, there are a few people who have to see it and take action on it and that witness will be demoted in a hurry.

Hope that helps!

$0.00

aussieninja (62) · 7 years ago

Ah.
This might be the most incredible response to a question ever.
This is extremely helpful, I had no idea any one person had so much power... but it's also probably a good thing too... I'm glad quick action can be taken if required. I've learnt so much about this platform and yet I still make huge leaps and bounds in my Steem-knowledge every day.

They might take our @pumpkin, but they will never take our @freedom!

$0.00

miti (75) · 7 years ago

I wrote this there and i repeat it here:

After discussion with the witnesses, it was decided to apply the “vote dust” shift to all votes equally. Each vote that is cast will be shifted down by about 1.219 SP. This effectively establishes a “baseline” voting strength that applies to everyone, while still maintaining a linear rewards curve for votes above the baseline. This way even large Steem Power holders won’t be able to profit from casting countless inconsequential votes.

Few words...

I think this will create a sort of iniquity.

The splitting up of big upvote is better of a 100% upvote to a lucky author (Perhaps his friend).

$0.00

mikepm74 (66) · 7 years ago

well, there is iniquity already established in the existing system. I don't think that this rule is intended to make us vote at 100% all the time, I think the intent is to make it less profitable for a whale to send out 1% votes on 1000s of posts a day in order to collect curation rewards.

Some of these accounts that they are trying to discourage have Voting Power Percentages down in the 30% range, and even though their vote power at 100% would be huge, at a certain point it becomes tiny. By making this reduction, eventually those votes become dust and the profit goes away.

I think (and this is conjecture, nothing more) that the effort is to make people be more focused on what they vote on for curation rewards rather than simply having the shotgun effect of voting everything and see what you catch.

$0.32

2 votes

miti (75) · 7 years ago

I'm still not convinced, but time will tell who's right ;-)
Thanks for your answer.

$0.42

abh12345 (76) · 7 years ago (edited)

I'm with your thinking here. Great write up Mike btw!

If Whales are encouraged to not split their vote, then to me this is going to mean less votes going round to folks who at present they might 'stick a small one on' because they had a bit of SP spare for the day.

My pessamistic view of the above is, Steemvoter doing overtime when the top 500 accounts' posts hit 15 minutes, and less for everyone else.

We shall see...

$0.07

appreciator (66) · 7 years ago

This post has received gratitude of 10.05 % from @appreciator thanks to: @mikepm74.

$0.00

minnowhelper (53) · 7 years ago

This post has received a 50.35 % upvote from thanks to: @mikepm74.
For more information, click here!!!!
Send minimum 0.010 SBD to bid for votes.
The Minnowhelper team is still looking for investors (Minimum 10 SP), if you are interested in this, read the conditions of how to invest click here!!!
ROI Calculator for Investors click here!!!

$0.00

littlenewthings (67) · 7 years ago

hi @mikepm74
Thank you so much for the summarised version of HF20.
I too disagree on dust vote threshold removal.
this will increase blind upvoting.

However I though do not spam votes but I do like to control my upvote percentage to support wider range of supporting good contents of my fellow peers; so I am not certain the lower VP is a good call.

upvoted

$0.00

jun04035 (57) · 7 years ago

Thank you sir for this clear guide.

$0.00

josejirafa (53) · 7 years ago

I see other issues in the system as well.

There are whales who upvote support users in a specific area and ignore others. Im juat concerned since I thought the platform was about making good content and getiing reward due to curation. But since some whales and even witnesses support people according to other criteria such as their relative level of acquaintance with each other, this forces minnows to stick up to these money making whales. All im saying is it is quite unfair to see the big guys help out the big guys. Now whats left for minnows is nothing. What's more is that this further decreases their motivatiom to make content simply because good content wasn't rewarded in the first place.

I may just be frustrated or self entitled. I dont know. But i do believe that curation is subjective. I just want that subjectivity to be fair and distributed equally to users. Lol

$0.00