I think it is critical, that all HF17 be run by the network. I will be looking at all my witness votes and assessing who is running 0.17.0. I will remove any votes that are not running 0.17.0. Tomorrow I will be, re-reviewing and adding more witnesses. I will continue to review on a daily basis, until consensus.
IMHO, this is very critical for my investment and for the Steemit community at large. Thank you witnesses that have already deployed 0.17.0.
There are 19 witnesses supporting HF17. I've voted for all of them.
| Rank | Witness | Approval | % | Miss | Reg fee | Feed | Bias | APR | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | @gtg | 83,706M | 20.65% | 21 | 20 | $0.18 | 0% | 1.50% | 0.17.0 |
| 10 | @riverhead | 77,764M | 19.18% | 1271 | 30 | $0.16 | -2% | 2% | 0.17.0 |
| 13 | @roadscape | 76,210M | 18.80% | 157 | 15 | $0.19 | -2% | 3% | 0.17.0 |
| 20 | @furion | 70,675M | 17.43% | 13 | 2.5 | $0.15 | -0.80% | 1.15% | 0.17.0 |
| 24 | @chainsquad.com | 67,787M | 16.72% | 128 | 30 | $0.18 | -2% | 2% | 0.17.0 |
| 25 | @joseph | 58,705M | 14.48% | 301 | 19 | $0.19 | -1% | 1% | 0.17.0 |
| 27 | @steemychicken1 | 58,608M | 14.46% | 697 | 20 | $0.18 | -2% | 5% | 0.17.0 |
| 31 | @steempty | 51,231M | 12.64% | 278 | 30 | $0.19 | -2% | 2.50% | 0.17.0 |
| 32 | @ihashfury | 50,433M | 12.44% | 49 | 9 | $0.19 | 0% | 6% | 0.17.0 |
| 45 | @fyrst-witness | 27,868M | 6.87% | 19 | 30 | $0.18 | 0% | 3% | 0.17.0 |
| 47 | @masteryoda | 25,516M | 6.29% | 213 | 10 | $0.19 | 0% | 10% | 0.17.0 |
| 50 | @curie | 21,156M | 5.22% | 17 | 30 | $0.18 | -1% | 2% | 0.17.0 |
| 54 | @nextgencrypto | 16,390M | 4.04% | 1172 | 11 | $0.17 | -3% | 10% | 0.17.0 |
| 61 | @teamsteem | 5,020M | 1.24% | 27 | 24 | $0.16 | 0% | 2.40% | 0.17.0 |
| 64 | @proctologic | 3,736M | 0.92% | 371 | 5 | $0.07 | 0% | 10% | 0.17.0 |
| 67 | @l0k1 | 3,329M | 0.82% | 18 | 10 | $0.19 | -1% | 0% | 0.17.0 |
| 69 | @arcange | 2,687M | 0.66% | 51 | 30 | $0.10 | 0% | 3% | 0.17.0 |
| 72 | @viva.witness | 2,024M | 0.50% | 0 | 30 | $0.19 | 0% | 4% | 0.17.0 |
| 78 | @neoxian | 1,478M | 0.36% | 4 | 30 | $0.15 | 0% | 0% | 0.17.0 |
@gutzofter is in a bubble.
tpsdave
Please read my post here for insight into why the present hardfork 17 release is not being upgraded to. https://steemit.com/steem/@pfunk/arguments-for-keeping-the-steem-reward-pool-whole
Overwhelming majority opinion among the current top-voted witnesses (including myself) is that the 7-day payout window needs abuse mitigation, as described in the white paper, to prevent late-vote reward sniping. There is a majority opinion among us against dividing the reward pool, which I tried to condense the reasons for into the above post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Funkedelic, I appreciate that post. I even upvoted it. The responsibilities of #Whale and #Witness roles are different. The question I have for you would be - Are you making your decision as a witness or as a whale?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not a whale, and I am making the decision as a witness with a long-term view of Steem as a platform that extends beyond steemit.com.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As far as I can tell a long-term view of Steem is a whale responsibility. I could be wrong, won't be the first time.
At least from my viewpoint, a witness's responsibilities are to maintain the security and the integrity of the network. Does any of the #HF17 implementations make the network weaker from a transaction basis? Does it impact the economic situation of a witness - producing a block?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I will do the same ! I will remove any votes that are not running 0.17.0.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hello @gutzofter! Very interesting!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Has there been an update to what is to be implemented?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It can be found here. To me, the HF17 is critical for adding value to the network. The two critical parts are:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree about the 7 day payout but apparently it does not run a anti-abuse reverse auction so that was why it was rejected. The splitting of rewards pools I think after reading @pfunk's article about it I am also against splitting the reward pool.
I am running 17 already (thanks for the vote) but it doesn't matter much what I think because I am not in the top 19 or even top 50 yet. But thanks for the vote, I noticed a little rise in my votes today. I mainly am running 17 because it is more stable.
I am hoping that after the veto Steemit, Inc. will be scrapping the split reward pool, revising the reward curve so that whales influence is proportional to their vests (which will make minnows and dolphin votes matter a lot more), but everything else in the HF17 was good. Like especially for example, you can now make a new account by irrevocably delegating SP to the new account. Well, we will be able to, when the fork gets passed. Hopefully in about the shape I just described.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Note there is 0.17.1 release, I saw this morning. The Author/Curator game is not where the big value is going to come from. So to me the diddling with the reward pool is nothing more than Game Theory and an IPD algorithm.
Glad you moved, hopefully Spring is in the air for you.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I just checked out the 17.1 release message on github. I will be upgrading my nodes to it, I think these are good changes - they are not consensus-based either so they will go into operation directly.
I am mostly in rest mode at the moment, my travels were quite exhausting. But I am working on getting a running witness on a docker base with gentoo inside it, it's not a difficult task and slow so it suits how my brain is working at the moment.
Oh, also, today a release 17.1 appeared. It has no consensus-related changes but a few good little things and probably more things that are just fixes, the gentoo docker I am making will be building 17.1 and I will be releasing it on github once it's done.
Seems this is the second-last depth of comment I can make so I will address https://steemit.com/witness/@patelincho/re-l0k1-re-gutzofter-re-l0k1-re-gutzofter-re-beanz-re-gutzofter-today-i-m-reviewing-my-witness-votes-for-hf17-20170325t182620570z
In fact, a split reward pool does not disadvantage the big whales, they just switch to voting some part to comments. The compounding of whale SP on votes is something that is more important that we eliminate. The differential is so big that you can round the effect of minnows and dolphins down to zero. Curation is a skill that is like entrepreneurship - basically seeing the future. It should not matter how much capital base you have, what matters should be that you vote ahead of a big pack. The whales having so much power that makes the rest of the users irrelevant works against the purpose of having a curation reward altogether, and works in effect as a way for whales to get more interest on their SP. They don't have anything to lose and they don't have to actually pick articles that people end up voting for in the hundreds. They just vote, and they get rewards. This is wrong and contrary to the stated objectives.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I also read about the split pool ( vote on comments is not this bad thing because to reach the coment you must open the post .......... idk why so much ageans this ( probably not so easy to make bot for it ? ) For me will benefit the active users and yes i undarstand why this people are upset ......... less profit from bots using and 0 engagement ? 10 20 people rule the reward pool here on steemit , i see why they dasunt want to give up part of it !
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yep! Whales are relegated to one trick ponies. HF17 should be able to start to open up more niches for investment.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit