Hardfork 20: What to Expect Tomorrow

2개월 전

PreHF20.jpg

Hello Steemians, tomorrow is the planned switchover date for HF20. After last week’s halting incident, we performed an exhaustive audit of the relevant blockchain code (specifically “config constants”) to ensure there were no similar bugs. After completing the audit, we are highly confident in this release, and we have recommended that the witnesses upgrade their nodes in preparation for the planned switchover tomorrow.

We will be fully staffed and prepared to deal with any problems that may arise. We are making this recommendation because we have the utmost confidence in the safety of the code and we believe that sticking to the scheduled time will minimize wallet downtime on exchanges. As of now, a super-majority of the top 20 Steem witnesses is running version 0.20.2 of steemd which means that, if nothing changes, the hardfork will occur tomorrow, September 25, 2018 at 15:00:00 UTC.

Unlimited Editing!

Before we go further into what changes users can expect after the Hardfork, we’re happy to announce that once all of the witnesses have begun running version 20 of steemd, we will be able to enable unlimited post editing on steemit.com!

Change is Coming

Hardfork 20 includes many updates, all of which were summarized in this post.

3 priorities governed the development of this hardfork:

  1. More efficiently allocating and pricing resources to ensure sustainability and scalability
  2. Enabling DApps to create free accounts while maintaining game theoretical security
  3. Setting the stage for communities on Steem and Smart Media Tokens

The biggest change included in this update is that our previous bandwidth system will be replaced with a more accurate and efficient “Resource Credit” system. In another post we explained in detail how the RC system will further Steem’s lead as the most advanced freemium blockchain in the world.

The development of that system was itself guided by 2 additional priorities:

  1. More accurately measuring the true cost of running the blockchain
  2. Enabling Steem developers to create more predictable user experiences

The new system will accomplish these goals by generating RCs (Resource Credits) based on stateless estimates of 3 resources: blockchain size, state size, and computational load. The blockchain will then distribute those credits to accounts based on how much Steem Power they hold. Like bandwidth, the only thing you will be able to do with RCs is “purchase” transactions (post, comment, vote, token transfer, etc.) and also like bandwidth, RCs will regenerate over time so that you can continue using the blockchain as long as you have Steem Power.

Important

It is very important to understand that, while RCs will function very much like bandwidth, this is a significant change to how transactions will be priced. The old bandwidth mechanism functions by assuming that all physical resources are correlated to one thing: transaction size (tx). The benefit of this system is that it is inexpensive for the blockchain to compute. The downside is that simple tx size is not especially accurate, which means that users who only perform operations that are low cost are effectively subsidizing all users who are performing high cost operations.

Examples

For example, under the current bandwidth model, a follow is underpriced because its computational cost to the blockchain is born over time, whereas a transfer is dramatically overpriced since it requires a lot of resources at the time of the transfer, but virtually none over time. Yet, under the bandwidth model, token transfers are 24 times more expensive than a follow. The RC system fixes this by accounting for a wider variety of consumed resources thereby creating more accurate internal pricing.

Impact on User Experience

By measuring more of the critical resource types the blockchain will more accurately price operations in RCs, but that also means that as of right now, resources are not being accurately priced. So after the RC system goes live, the user experience will have to change and the new system will need time to reach a new equilibrium. Due to this uncertainty, we added a “fail safe” to the code that will enable witnesses to revert from the RC system back to the old bandwidth system if absolutely necessary.

However, we strongly recommend not using this option.

Our lead blockchain developers @vandeberg and @theoretical have spent countless hours scouring this code and are certain that over the long run this system will improve user experience on Steem. But, most importantly, it is absolutely critical for the sustainability and scalability of the platform that this system be allowed to operate and reach equilibrium.

Maintaining a Consistent User Experience

We have also built in a mechanism that will ensure users are gradually transitioned from the old bandwidth system to the new RC system. That being said, as the transition goes on, users will likely notice some changes in user experience, though it is difficult to predict what those changes will be. Over the long run, we believe that this new system will have a beneficial impact on the prevalence of bots and spam.

What to Expect

But while the system is searching for equilibrium, the appearance of these phenomena might actually increase. At the same time, we expect that the real user’s ability to transact may be more limited. We will be monitoring the behavior of the RC system following the hardfork and promise to inform users of any changes that represent serious threats. We thank you in advance for your patience as the system adapts.

The crux of the problem is that many expensive operations are underpriced by the current bandwidth algorithm. Were the RC system applied in its purest form, it would immediately impose draconian austerity on all operations, severely limiting the ordinary user’s ability to transact. In order to avoid this scenario we are making transactions artificially cheaper than they would otherwise be at the beginning‒setting the resource pools to 90% of max equilibrium at the time of the hardfork‒which will allow users to continue using the blockchain after the hardfork and gradually transition them into the RC system. It allows the user base to consume the artificially high resource pools down to the new equilibrium instead of forcing them to wait for the pools to regenerate up to the new equilibrium.

Time Frame

The changes in user experience should only last around 7 days. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to know exactly how things will unfold as the system relies on unpredictable human feedback. What we know has to happen in order for Steem to scale‒while remaining a freemium blockchain‒is that we must transition to a system in which the people who are performing low cost operations are not paying for the people who are performing high cost operations. In addition to improving the sustainability and scalability of the ecosystem, this system should have a beneficial effect with respect to spam and bots. But this also means that there will have to be a transition period during which users learn what operations consume a lot of RCs. Votes and token actions will require relatively few RCs, for example, while comments will consume far more RCs. Again, this is based entirely on the amount of computational resources these activities consume.

Free Account Creation

Another important change that is coming in HF20 is the ability for Steem Power holders to use their RCs to purchase Account Creation tokens. Purchasing an Account Creation token only enables you to do one thing: create one account at zero cost. Proportioning the amount of free accounts a user can create to their stake ensures that the account creator is incentivized to only create accounts for valuable people. As with the RC system, there are a lot of unknowns with respect to how this will function IRL. That is the cost of decentralized solutions optimized for sustainability and scalability. Since no one individual or entity controls the system, how exactly it will perform cannot be known.

Role of Witnesses

In order to minimize the risk of this system being gamed, the people who will bear the cost of abuse (those who have skin-in-the-game) have to exert the most influence over the system. For this reason, the witnesses will be the ones determining the supply of Account Creation tokens as they bear the cost of running the network. It is important to note that even if the witnesses set the number of Account Creation tokens to zero, all that means is that in order to create an account someone will have to pay the 3 STEEM account creation fee which, after HF20, will be burned instead of powered up. If they want that account to be able to transact on Steem, then they will need to delegate Steem Power to that account as is currently the case. In other words, if the witnesses set the supply of Account Creation tokens to zero, we are effectively left with the same system we have now.

Fostering Growth

The witnesses want this network to grow in size and value, so they have an incentive to make the supply of Account Creation tokens positive. We are recommending that witnesses set the supply of Account Creation tokens such that they support the same rate of sign ups we are currently experiencing. This is typically the approach we take when integrating new systems. First, we ensure that the system can deliver the same level of functionality as the old system and, once that has been sufficiently tested, we can begin exploring new capabilities.

Based on our calculations, this approach will make Account Creation tokens extremely expensive in terms of RCs at the beginning. It is important to remember that RCs also govern an account’s ability to transact. So if you spend all of your RCs on account creation, you will lose the ability to transact until your RCs regenerate over the next 5 days. Of course, accounts can power up more STEEM in order to receive more RCs and resume transacting.

It’s important to bear in mind that HF20 is not a panacea. It is another, very big, step in the right direction. What we know for certain is that these changes will provide all of us with the tools we need to scale Steem to much greater heights, but the cost we must bear is some uncertainty with respect to how these systems will interact with users in the short term, as well as what systems and tools we will need to build in order to effectively leverage the features we are adding to the base layer.

Let’s Do This!

We strongly believe that Hardfork 20 should be allowed to occur tomorrow and that this event will be a major step forward for the Steem blockchain and the Steem community. We kindly request your patience as the new systems go into effect and we promise to keep you fully informed in the event of any unforeseen consequences.

Steemit Blockchain Team

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
Sort Order:  trending

So after the RC system goes live, the user experience will have to change and the new system will need time to reach a new equilibrium.

That being said, as the transition goes on, users will likely notice some changes in user experience, though it is difficult to predict what those changes will be.

But while the system is searching for equilibrium, the appearance of these phenomena might actually increase.

The changes in user experience should only last around 7 days. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to know exactly how things will unfold as the system relies on unpredictable human feedback.

As with the RC system, there are a lot of unknowns with respect to how this will function IRL.

All of this is not very confidence-inspiring. If there is so much uncertainty and if these protocols are as important as is being claimed, why was the testing period not extended and the testnet not expanded until more reliable feedback could be obtained?

We're being asked to accept a hard fork with such a high level of uncertainty because one entity believes it will be "better." And then we're being told that witnesses ought to accept it and ought to set specific parameters...again, because one entity believes those parameters will be best for everyone, despite this same entity expressing such a low level of confidence about new user behavior and system feedback.

This is precisely why such large changes to the blockchain protocols should not be coupled with other protocol changes.

There is far too much variability when adding multiple changes at once, especially if the magnitude of the changes from one protocol could be so severe that you feel the need to issue multiple cautions/warnings to users.

Before I'm castigated once again...

I'm all for trying the RC system. I think it could be a viable solution for better allocating network resources - something I have been talking about for quite some time. But I believe that such a big change to the system ought to be more robustly tested and introduced to the blockchain by itself so that we can see more isolated and reliable feedback when it comes to user behavior. The level of uncertainty expressed in this post is worrisome, taking into account previous hard forks and large-scale user behavioral changes in the past - specifically following last year's hard forks.

This is certainly not the first time I've mentioned all of this and I'm certainly not alone on the matter. It would be nice if it were taken seriously one day by the Steemit, Inc. dev team.

You can see my previous commentary about HF20 here:

https://steemit.com/witness/@ats-witness/steem-hardfork-20-thoughts-on-velocity

·

The level of uncertainty expressed in this post is worrisome, taking into account previous hard forks and large-scale user behavioral changes in the past - specifically following last year's hard forks.

I think that the RC system upcoming as described is a set of interesting choices. Not good choices, but interesting choices.

I have commonly been saying "you get what you reward" when it comes to the mechanical underpinnings of the steem blockchain because it's absolutely true. What you reward is what you get more of. Contrariwise, what you punish you get less of.

Given that straightforward pair of axioms, and ignoring what Steemit Inc. is saying and looking at what they're doing, what do they want to incentivize and get more of?

Votes, which are effective leveraging of SP to change the allocation of the reward pool – not surprisingly scaled to the SP of the voter. Token transactions, which are simple financial exchanges and don't represent the addition of any content to the social network side of the service (which is also true of votes, in a real sense).

What are they punishing? Comments, interestingly enough, which represent one of the two ways with which agents on the blockchain can actually create and engage with content and creators. Given that were talking about RC's as proxies and replacements for bandwidth, if the cost of commenting is going up then likewise the cost of posting has to be going up, and I think it's interesting that wasn't mentioned. After all, for all that comments are the vast majority of the time purely text blobs, but tend to a much smaller size, posts have to be costed at a much higher rate even than comments because from the long-term view, far more people are going to see them than any given comment and we've already been told that things with long-term payload transmission costs should be costed higher.

So what do they want more of? Things that don't actually interact with the social side of the steem blockchain. Token transfers. Votes. What do they want less of? Posts and comments, and anything that actually has a long term side effect for storage or presentation.

What happens when you provide downward pressure on the number of posts and upward pressure on the number of votes? Fewer posts get more of the larger number of votes, pushing the distribution of the reward pool to a smaller number of people.

This isn't hard thinking, because it's basic game logic. This is me giving it five minutes of thought. It's not a surprise.

Also, the stated assumption is that witnesses want to increase the amount of traffic on the steem blockchain along with its value. That's patently not true. In fact, if we look at the cost/benefits for witnesses, because they are essentially just database nodes, what they really want is for the amount of traffic to decrease while the value of STEEM increases, reducing the amount that they have to pay in order to remain witnesses in terms of hardware, bandwidth, and maintenance costs to earn the same or more amount of STEEM.

Again, five minutes of thinking. This is not hard. The pressure on all participants is to do less work for more pay; that's just good sense. That's what the witnesses are incentivized to do.

Now, I don't know if this particular post is a product of PR spin first by someone who truly doesn't know any better or someone who is just lying to our faces. Not only do I not know, there is no way for me to know so I can't know.

But what I do know is that there are some obvious impacts which will, if these changes are of the magnitude it's implied they are, provide the pressures as I've just laid them out. With those pressures manifest, it's not hard to predict what the results will be.

It was never hard.

I also find it very interesting to note that despite having access to all of the data on the whole blockchain for the entire history of its existence, nobody sat down during the planning for hardfork 20 and wrote up "this is how the average user experience will change given these changes," and then put that bit of text into this posting. They literally know every activity of every account that ever happened and know what an average account set of operations are, but can't tell us whether or not the average user engaging with the blockchain as they do right now will have to change their behavior going forward, despite knowing what they are costing every transaction except for account creation at in RC's.

That's a real problem for me. That should have been one of the first things that they looked at when thinking about how want to change the resource allocation mechanics. Will the average user have to change their behavior in the new regime? If so, how? These are core and essential questions without some concept of which you can't make the decisions that we've been told are made.

Somebodies full of crap about something. Today, it's not me.

·
·

If I’m not misunderstanding the implications of the change, they’ve indeed shot themselves in the foot if they’ve decided to charge to the poster all future bandwidth and storage costs for every reader they project to read a post. There are other choices they could make. It’s inane to make the poster responsible for the costs due to readers without providing the poster a means to monetize their content. That’s the job of the blogging (or more generally social media) aggregation platform to holistically monetize publishing.

I’m roughly calculating the current design is awarding 1 comment per day for every 20 SP (40,000 Vests). At 1% APR (compounded daily) opportunity cost that is $0.00054 fee per comment (opportunity cost charged even if not posted).

Additionally it’s well known that micropayments don’t work when the cognitive load involves the Steemians analyzing the cost of every action they do.

Also the way this HF was handled is an epic PR fuck-up. Displaying a “you need to buy more Voting Power in order to continue posting” to 99% of users is a great way to give the impression of being a scam and/or totally incompetent.

Pack your bags folks, Steem is likely going away soon into the dustbin where lies other fuck-ups such Murdoch’s destruction of MySpace and Marissa Mayer’s aimless shuffling of the deck chairs at Yahoo… the writing of (not just mediocrity but self-immolating) incompetence may be on the wall although I will hold out final judgement in hopes I might be mistaken.

·
·
·

All I can say is when CRED?

·
·
·

Voting power percentages seem to have recovered about halfway for me, so those are coming back up – but I still have absolutely no sense for how many Comments I could post and still have RC to use on the blockchain. In this is a real problem.

If your numbers are right, and I'm holding about 600 SP, that means that I could write 30 comments a day before I ran out of RC just through the process of commenting. Not posting, not doing any other interaction on the blockchain, just commenting. While I'm not doing anything near that kind of density right now, there have definitely been moments in the past where I have made 30 comments in a day on an active, back and forth conversation.

At least from the discussion regarding Comments (and the active, aggressive avoidance of discussing any RC costs for Posting, which should follow the same line of reasoning), it would appear that they are attempting to adjust those costs to cover future bandwidth and storage costs for activities – which is an interesting idea, because a cynical game designer would point out that you should charge people with more SP a higher RC value because those people are more likely to have posts and comments which drive more aggressive traffic and thus rack up more network and storage costs in the long run. I mean, if we are calculating future costs based on activity, then it would seem that those which are most likely to cause activity bear the brunt of that cost, right?

(In actual practice this would be a truly suicidal design since it deliberately punishes those who are successful, but since so many members of the steem blockchain seem to be into that sort of thing, I would be tempted to give it to them, and give it to them good and hard.)

Though I think you might be missing something by not noting that posters do have the ability to monetize their content – and, in fact, that's pretty much the sole and solid underpinning of the steem blockchain living underneath this relatively ad hoc social network living on top of it. The monetization architecture is the only thing that's people seem to talk about. Technically, even we are talking about it right now.

Now, the fact that votes within the 15 minute window burn their portion that would otherwise have gone to the author during the previous hardfork, that's ugly. At least if voters started hitting a new piece of content within the open window in order to jockey against one another for the higher curation awards, that gave the original author a reward for being the kind of content they think they can turn a curation dime on. Now? Those funds get burned, which in theory increases the rewards for everyone – but in practice, since rewards are scaled by SP, it is literally taking money out of the hands of the creators and putting it into the hands of high SP curators, and it falls hardest on those who actually want/need to take their money out of the blockchain and spend it on goods and services.

Additionally, I'm not down with the assessment that "micro-payments don't work", because we have some pretty good examples of micro-payment systems that do work – they just have real trouble getting traction because for one to be particularly useful, they have to see widespread adoption and the way of managing the funds needs to be relatively transparent. Personally, I'm really fond of Flattr because it only asks how much money I want to put in my tip out jar once a month, then counts all the tips that I give during that month by number of times I've interacted with pieces of media put up by people who use Flattr, and splits up the amount I have already decided to distribute across all of the tip shares I've handed out, restocks the jar, and the next cycle begins.

If anything, I wish the voting system on the steem blockchain worked as transparently. Rather than worrying about voting windows and voting order, if accounts simply had an amount of STU determined by their SP for the week, they go out and vote as they see fit as much as they like or as little, on content dropped immediately or a year old, and at the end of the week their STU is divided between the shares they've handed out – it would be a much better, more effective, more useful system.

Which is why I never expect it to happen.

I don't expect that steem is likely to go away soon simply because it does have an active (if ridiculously messy and largely content-corrupt) social network attached to it. It is, in some sense, doing actual work, which puts it somewhat ahead of quite a lot of other cryptocoins, but it's certainly possible that at some point we may turn around and look at HF 20 as "the beginning of the end" if some of these other issues aren't tackled.

The nature of a blockchain is inherently problematic for storing content like that of a social network. You need the whole thing any time you want to add a new node, it never gets any lighter, there is no way to create adjuncts which easily create a proper database for using a digital application making it much harder to do anything serious – really it's just a mess, and the wrong tool for the job.

But it's the one that's active right now. We'll see if it makes a difference.

·
·
·
·

but I still have absolutely no sense for how many Comments I could post

There’s an estimate provided at steemd.com. The RC cost of a comment increases with the amount of text. There’s no cost mentioned for blog posts. Are blog authors charged RC?

and the active, aggressive avoidance of discussing any RC costs for Posting, which should follow the same line of reasoning

Does this mean the RC costs for blog posting is unspecified or that it remains 0?

If your numbers are right, and I'm holding about 600 SP, that means that I could write 30 comments a day before I ran out of RC just through the process of commenting.

Multiply my estimate by 4 for single peak day of usage followed by 3 days of inactivity, since that is the number of days I was estimating for RC to 100% recharge from 0%.

because a cynical game designer would point out that you should charge people with more SP a higher RC value because those people are more likely to have posts and comments which drive more aggressive traffic and thus rack up more network and storage costs in the long run. I mean, if we are calculating future costs based on activity, then it would seem that those which are most likely to cause activity bear the brunt of that cost, right?

Powered up STEEM (SP aka Vests) and resource demands on the blockchain may not be well correlated, because they may be using bots to upvote their own sockpuppet posts without actually requesting the data for the blog posts for reading for each upvote. Also it’s not clear that the vested interests of whales are even aligned with maximizing the actual social media use of Steem and thus the growth of its non-bot usership.

Steem is designed analogous to socialism wherein we collectivize all the costs and then pay our share which is not fair because it isn’t correlated for each user to the actual derivative demand footprint they generate. But herein lies the egregious design flaw of Steem, because there’s no model for paying for the data storage and serving layer. Witness payments are for updating and maintaining a canonical copy of the blockchain.

One possible correct way to do this is that readers would pay on each instance they access some data. This also encourages readers to use caching so they don’t unnecessarily retrieve data more than once. But then this requires that freemium readers have some way to access the site without paying. One solution to that problem is advertising for freemium users and remove the advertising for non-freemium users. Steem apparently wasn’t designed to economically separate the data layer from the ledger layer, which seems to be a critical design flaw. I pointed this out more than a year ago.

Though I think you might be missing something by not noting that posters do have the ability to monetize their content – and, in fact, that's pretty much the sole and solid underpinning of the steem blockchain […] The monetization architecture is the only thing that's people seem to talk about.

The monetization w.r.t. to resource costs is not correlated to incentives as I have alluded to above. For example, freeium readers may be great for virally expanding readership and followers, but these minnow voters are negligible monetization.

Also since the change last year to linear voting, everyone has a monetary incentive to only vote for themselves. I explained in 2016 at the inception, that voting from collectivized pool of debasement has no possible viable game theory. The math and game theory of my 2016 blog is irrefutable: Steem is insolubly broken in terms of its fundamental design characteristics. AFAICT, the only thing holding it up is the speculative demand for cryptocurrency and the gamesmanship (combined with ignorance of n00bs and greater fools) of the broken economics and game theory.

Also blogging isn’t about direct monetization.

Additionally, I'm not down with the assessment that "micro-payments don't work", because we have some pretty good examples of micro-payment systems that do work

They don’t scale when there’s a cognitive load burden, because people have an opportunity cost on their time and complexity of system. Do you know of any counter example?

Micropayments may work when the cost is insignificant so the users don’t think about it.

Which is why I never expect it to happen.

It will never happen but for reasons you do not seem to understand. My 2016 blog explained the math and game theory: the voting system must be unfair. If you try to make it fair, then all you do is incentivize everyone to vote only for themselves and thus it is meaningless. Whereas as unfair, then it simply means the whales are raping the greater fools and hopefully there’s enough new greater fools buying STEEM and powering up to fund the whales’ appetite. Steem is a grand obfuscation.

I don't expect that steem is likely to go away soon simply because it does have an active (if ridiculously messy and largely content-corrupt) social network attached to it.

I thought that too, but if the tinker-tots are allowed to continue tinkering, they might just topple it sooner than I expected.

You need the whole thing any time you want to add a new node

Ah no. No disrespect intended. My four-part blog series on ledgers may be instructive.

I write very important blogs but I earn nearly nothing from them lately. But I don’t write them to monetize them directly. There is nothing that ties me strongly to posting them on Steem other than continuity. And soon I won’t be posting them here. I need so many features and capabilities that Steem will never get around to offering. And I need that my followers won’t be burdened by all this tinkering disruption.

·
·
·
·
·

There’s an estimate provided at steemd.com. The RC cost of a comment increases with the amount of text. There’s no cost mentioned for blog posts. Are blog authors charged RC?

There's an estimate, but there is some question as to whether that estimate is accurate. In fact, at this point, judging from the chatter on some of the blockchain library development groups I stare at, there's a diverse set of questions about how to even make an accurate assessment. Which from my point of view is a bad situation to be in.

Pointedly, it reflects more on the bad decision-making of Steemit Inc. as regards documentation and planning than it does the people actually trying to use the tools. This is not a thing we should be in doubt about at any point.

Does this mean the RC costs for blog posting is unspecified or that it remains 0?

I don't know.

I do know that under the hood as far as the architecture of the way the blockchain things of the text blobs, comments and posts are exactly the same. If I were to make a guess, not having tested it, I would assume that they have the exact same cost in RC – which is not necessarily a great thing if you're interested in having people post more content actively to the blockchain as a social network. Since there aren't any other costs which would appear to be similar to making a new blockchain entry with a text blob, I can just work from the observation that they appear to have the same cost.

Multiply my estimate by 4 for single peak day of usage followed by 3 days of inactivity, since that is the number of days I was estimating for RC to 100% recharge from 0%.

According to steemd, I have enough RC for 53 comments, and going by our current assumptions that comments and posts have the same cost, that would mean some mix of 53 comments and posts. Leaving aside the issue of whether I wanted to make any votes, any transfers, or do anything else on the blockchain. That's a little more generous, assuming that their numbers are right, but you are right to point out that this is a value that slowly regenerates.

Emphasis on "slowly."

The recharge rate is deeply opaque. From the description that Steemit Inc. provided during their discussions of hardfork 20, it might be reasonable to assume that the recharge rate is something like four or five days to reach 100% from zero, which means that we don't multiply the estimate to trying get a feel for what kind of and how much activity is allowed for, but rather we have to divide.

That is to say, if I'm allowed 53 comments at my current RC, and it's about 60% at the moment, is what it is trying to tell me that I can do is about 88 comments or posts over a five-day period? At least at my current SP of about 600?

They told us that the cost also scales with the size of the comment as well, so there is some question about whether or not there's some additional RC fee on top of the transaction itself if you make a larger post or comment. How much is that? No bloody clue. I'm not sure even the folks poking around at their client tools know that for sure yet.

Powered up STEEM (SP aka Vests) and resource demands on the blockchain may not be well correlated, because they may be using bots to upvote their own sockpuppet posts without actually requesting the data for the blog posts for reading for each upvote.

I'd say that you've made a good argument for the opposite, that SP is a fine correlation for resource demands on the blockchain. After all, although sock puppet bot manipulations do frequent and consistent interactions and transactions with the blockchain. If they are maintaining their balances and expanding them by bot swarms, then there SP very well maybe an excellent proxy.

(Unfortunately or fortunately, having poked around myself in the guts of the blockchain, at least in terms of the distribution of SP voting power, I can state unequivocally and without sarcasm that SP is a very poor proxy of activity on the blockchain. It would be far more effective to look, if one is seeking a single metric, at "amount of active SP" as opposed to "total SP." But then it's not a proxy at all, it's the thing.)

Also it’s not clear that the vested interests of whales are even aligned with maximizing the actual social media use of Steem and thus the growth of its non-bot usership.

That's never been clear, and I have been known to argue on more than one occasion that the interests of whales is really to get as few human beings involved in the process of blockchain operations as possible, because human beings are inefficient at moving and keeping moving sums of SP. If I had 100 million SP or so, I would be actively seeking to get as much of that moving through the botnets and keeping it moving through the botnets as possible, because that's how you get a larger share of the reward pool in any given cycle. Actually looking for content generated by a human, waiting for the votes, and engaging at that level would do me no good at all because it takes too long. The more active SP in play, the more of the reward pool you can direct.

Steem is designed analogous to socialism wherein we collectivize all the costs and then pay our share which is not fair because it isn’t correlated for each user to the actual derivative demand footprint they generate. But herein lies the egregious design flaw of Steem, because there’s no model for paying for the data storage and serving layer. Witness payments are for updating and maintaining a canonical copy of the blockchain.

The original white paper (and honestly the vast bulk of white papers on every cryptocurrency) is schizophrenic when it comes to the issue of collectivism versus markets. The creators seem very clear on the fact that efficient allocation of resources happens in markets, and thus some sort of proof of involvement is the mechanism to drive the interaction with the blockchain. It's complicated by the fact that pretty much nobody involved in cryptocurrency understands jack-shit about economics and they get tied up in the fact that the way they want things to turn out is in no way driven by the mechanisms that they set up and know which are, mathematically, the most efficient.

And that's how you get Steem. Which on the one hand wants to believe that everybody knows better than somebody and that collective action in the authoritarian top-down assessment is better than individual agents making decisions for themselves, and all the results should end up with everybody fat, rich, and happy – except for those fat, rich, happy people, because those guys of the enemy of the proletariat.

In theory, the witnesses would accept and consider that the cost of paying for data storage and network service is part of updating and maintaining a canonical copy of the blockchain. After all, one of the things witnesses are required to do is to provide RPC access for clients using the blockchain. That cost is already factored in to what witnesses are supposed to be "getting paid for."

In practice, there's probably not enough actual money running around in the steem blockchain to pay for enough servers to maintain the level of activity and storage replication that keeps being promised. There is almost certainly not enough money to pay any individual server costs. My suspicion is that witnesses are probably kicking in a lot of their own money from other sources in order to stay at the top of the heap, speculating that the market will turn around again and their long-term investment in the steem blockchain will pay off big time.

That's not a gamble I would be willing to make and you can tell because I have absolutely no inclination to become a witness. Always judge a man by where he's willing to put his money.

If steem really believed in its architecture, of course, then storage and network serving would be as much of an automated marketplace as everything else, with witnesses setting their individual prices to interact with the blockchain and the system functioning as a market, buying resources from them in exchange for access to some portion of the reward pool. Sadly, that's not how it works.

One possible correct way to do this is that readers would pay on each instance they access some data.

And the problem with this is the same problem as with the Lino blockchain – there's no place for a new user to jumpstart being in the system and no reason for them to stay as a consumer, which is the one and only way that a social network maintains user base.

Or more succinctly, "why would I pay to look at the spines of books when I can go next door to a library for free?"

You are absolutely correct that there is no good solution in a freemium architecture outside of some sort of advertising or selling descriptive data about the behavior of the user base. There has to be some sort of income representing some kind of externally assessed value for the platform.

I've taken that to mean that the freemium concept is just essentially broken for this kind of social network. That's not to say that there aren't ways to earn money, but it has to start with the assessment of what value you have to offer people for engagement.

The monetization w.r.t. to resource costs is not correlated to incentives as I have alluded to above. For example, freeium readers may be great for virally expanding readership and followers, but these minnow voters are negligible monetization.

I'm not sure that's actually true. Or rather, the first part noting the decoupling of resource costs from incentives is absolutely true, but I'm not sure that freemium readers are not representative of a monetization opportunity sufficient to drive the system.

I do know that the architecture as it stands is insufficient to provide sufficient incentives to freemium/minnow/new users to turn them into long-term/invested users for the most part, and that is a much, much bigger problem.

There's no point in trying to sell advertising on a billboard if there's nobody driving down the road.

Also since the change last year to linear voting, everyone has a monetary incentive to only vote for themselves.

I wouldn't say "only" vote for themselves – but self voting is incredibly incentivized by the whole system, and it becomes a rational response to the provided pressures. I find it kind of interesting that it is such a negatively pressured activity from a fairly narrow portion of the social group. Not surprisingly, that portion of the social group tends to correlate with authoritarian tendencies and a belief in top-down governance. Sad but true.

I agree that steem as a blockchain hybrid social network is probably completely broken because of its most basic mechanics. I've spent not a little time dealing with game theory myself and it was pretty obvious early on. It is exactly the speculative demand for cryptocurrency, and perhaps only that in a true sense, that keeps it moving forward. Should that speculative demand increase, of course the value of steem will increase and someone could make use of that to profit. But that speculation is just that; there is very little inherent value to the steem blockchain.

Also blogging isn’t about direct monetization.

Blogging for you isn't about direct monetization. On alternate Thursdays, blogging for me isn't about direct monetization. But I don't hold it against anyone if they would like to get paid for their blogging. Some people have made a career out of it over the last couple of decades. I would never sully their dreams by suggesting that blogging, in and of itself, isn't about direct monetization.

It's about whatever somebody wants to get out of it, whether that be cash on the barrel head or the adulation of their peers or just to get the words out and thrown into the void. That's not an important issue for the steem blockchain, interestingly enough.

Micropayments may work when the cost is insignificant so the users don’t think about it.

Thank you for moving the goal posts, and saving me the effort. You made the broad claim that "micro-payments don't work." We know that's not true, because we've seen micro payment systems that "work," for definitions of work which involved "largely setting out to do what they intended to do." Issues of adoption are orthogonal.

I would absolutely agree that micro payments work best when the cost is insignificant and work as a side effect of what they would be doing anyway, or as a deliberate tipping mechanism which allows them to express their support for a creator – which is really what the subscription and donation architecture on Twitch is. If anything, it defines the best micro payment system with the broadest market penetration in its space.

The users don't have to think about how much it costs because it is in their local fiat currency and they can get fairly instant feedback from other people about how much they've donated or compared to other channels about how much their subscriptions cost. As weird as it is, it's a pretty open and free market, and is doing really well.

If you try to make it fair, then all you do is incentivize everyone to vote only for themselves and thus it is meaningless. Whereas as unfair, then it simply means the whales are raping the greater fools and hopefully there’s enough new greater fools buying STEEM and powering up to fund the whales’ appetite. Steem is a grand obfuscation.

Okay, see, here is where you've gone off into "I can make shit up, too," territory.

Voting systems do not have to be unfair. In fact, the voting system on Steemit and the steem blockchain doesn't have to be unfair inherently. There's no reason to think that voting for yourself is inherently wrong. None. In fact, in the greater sense, it's self controlling. If what you are voting for is to make the little numbers in your wallet go up in a magical way, you're getting exactly what you wanted. Eventually the whole blockchain dies because there's no valuation coming in from outside, but you are getting exactly what you called for. That's working.

The real problem is that there is no reason to vote for a normal user on the steem blockchain. Voting doesn't change their personal experience in any way. It doesn't improve what they see, it doesn't inform discovery, for the vast majority of users it doesn't even particularly reward creators that provide them gratification very well. Any of these points could be addressed mechanically, potentially without even implementing a new blockchain. A good client that used voting history to drive a discovery loop could give individual users a reason to vote for someone other than themselves in order to get something they wouldn't otherwise get, interesting content.

People are perfectly willing to engage with voting architectures that have no fiscal valuation at all as long as those architectures give them something they want. On occasion, they engage with them even at their cost as long as they are getting something that ratifies them.

The problem is not some form of inherent unfairness. The problem is that voting doesn't get you anything as things are currently set up. Whales aren't raping anybody simply by being, they are simple repositories of SP. Most whales literally don't do anything, and I mean that very precisely. The vast bulk of SP on the steem blockchain has never been touched and it has never been used for anything, an up vote, not a down vote, not a transaction, nothing.

Whales are not the problem. The system is the problem.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I agree with much of what you wrote. There’s a few misunderstandings which I should clarify.

but rather we have to divide.

My estimate was for 1 day of activity recharged in 1 day, so I had already divided. That’s why I wrote you needed to roughly multiply my estimate. I agree we would need to divide the estimate shown at steemd.com.

is what it is trying to tell me that I can do is about 88 comments or posts over a five-day period?

Roughly yes. 😨😱

I'd say that you've made a good argument for the opposite, that SP is a fine correlation for resource demands on the blockchain.

But I wasn’t writing in that context about resource demands on the blockchain ledger but rather on the orthogonal data layer. The blockchain ledger (if properly designed) only has to store a hash of the data. The data itself can in theory be stored and retrieved separately if the design is correctly implement this way.

Real human users place resource demands on the data layer, bots maybe not so much unless there’s some DDoS attack incentive.

It's complicated by the fact that pretty much nobody involved in cryptocurrency understands jack-shit about economics

There are at least a few of us who do.

In theory, the witnesses would […] In practice, there's probably not enough actual money running around in the steem blockchain to pay for enough servers to maintain the level of activity and storage replication that keeps being promised.

Can’t scale because the conflation of the blockchain and the data layer is fundamentally broken economics and game theory. On a forum where we are not charged so much RC to discuss this, I could delve into this more deeply with you. Please kindly do not reply with more misunderstandings and false accusations about my deeper points. I can’t possibly summarize in a few words without causing misunderstandings. And my RC is limited.

If steem really believed in its architecture […] Sadly, that's not how it works.

The problem with setting transaction fees in a free market is much deeper, seemingly insoluble problem than you may realize. It ties into facets of design such as the blocksize quagmire and monopolization. @smooth will attest to you that I was writing about the fundamental issue on bitcointalk.org (and the Bitcoin Stackexchange) back in year 2013.

It’s not only do many crypto nerds not grasp market economics. Actual solutions may not exist or may be very difficult to formulate correctly.

Or more succinctly, "why would I pay to look at the spines of books when I can go next door to a library for free?"

Because (for one several reasons) in my idea (advertising for freemium) the freemium user can’t post.

but I'm not sure that freemium readers are not representative of a monetization opportunity sufficient to drive the system.

Separate concerns. The freemium readers can be a temporal state of being able to at least read something the first time they land there, before deciding if they want to sign up. Thus freemium doesn’t have to equate with the users who are not serious enough to signup or pay something. Actually there’s many details I’m not telling you my design secrets for my project under development.

But I don't hold it against anyone if they would like to get paid for their blogging. Some people have made a career out of it over the last couple of decades.

Some people play in the NBA, but not many. You might want to visit the link I provided.

Thank you for moving the goal posts, and saving me the effort. You made the broad claim that "micro-payments don't work."

Sorry no. I originally qualified my statement as quoted below and have not further moved the goalposts:

Additionally it’s well known that micropayments don’t work when the cognitive load involves the Steemians analyzing the cost of every action they do.


Issues of adoption are orthogonal.

Disagree unless lack of appreciable adoption was one of the goals.

which is really what the subscription and donation architecture on Twitch is

Haven’t look but Paetron for ongoing monthly donations to those who otherwise work gratis on important endeavors or art (e.g. Eric S. Raymond), seems to work for its intended goal. But I hardly classify those as micropayments because the Paetron is subscribing until further notice to make automatic monthly contributions. By definition a micropayment is something so small that any cognitive load outstrips its value.

Voting systems do not have to be unfair.

The context of my point was a mathematical one in terms of reward distribution which I precisely defined in my blog I had linked for you. If rewards are distributed proportion to SP (i.e. linear voting), that is what I define to be “fair” in this context only. Such a voting system is more or less meaningless though in terms of voting having any meaning in social media for ranking. It may have other forms of “meaning,” but so do my philosophical turds while I’m squatting on the shitter.

IOW, I think Steem voting has more or less failed for social media adoption other than when users have a strong incentive to express sentiment with votes contrary to their economic incentive. And amongst real human minnows voting is basically worthless except for expressing sentiment. So voting on Steem is not entirely a failure. The problem is the whales can distort everything if they want to, because one real human whale can express the voting of a million sockpuppets.

The real problem is that there is no reason to vote for a normal user on the steem blockchain.

Disagree. I (slider set to 10%) upvoted your reply to indicate I had read it and that I agreed with much of it. Reddit voting indicates that users do vote their sentiment. I know because I have a -16 karma there because I posted contentiously about Lightning Networks.

Any of these points could be addressed mechanically, potentially without even implementing a new blockchain.

Agreed. But again the distortion power of whales always has to be factored in. Reddit struggled with how to make their voting algorithms not gameable and I think they just ended up highly randomizing it, but I am not sure because it was so impossible to squelch.

People are perfectly willing to engage with voting architectures that have no fiscal valuation at all as long as those architectures give them something they want.

Agreed.

The problem is not some form of inherent unfairness.

The insoluble problem of whale distortion is an inherent issue. You seem to be missing the point. When you actually try to design some of those features you mentioned, then you will realize how they can be gamed. If gaming destroys the utility of the feature, then the feature can’t be accomplished.

Most whales literally don't do anything, and I mean that very precisely. The vast bulk of SP on the steem blockchain has never been touched

You can’t know that because whales can subdivide their SP into many small accounts.

Flies to honey. Put more honey, more flies. And besides you could be talking about @smooth and the main Steemit accounts. But that removed from the active SP, then the malevolent active whales that remain are more potent if the “good” SP is idle not countering them.

This is a very complex topic and sorry if I don’t have enough RC to continue this discussion. I need to save for posting a new blog on 9/11 Pentagon flyover empirical smoking gun I discovered.

I do agree with you. There are issues. I’m working on it (not for Steem).

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

If you do blog on these issues elsewhere, make sure to leave a trail!!
I was deeply involved in these issues about a year ago and coming back to them with this HF20 and SMTs.

I'm not sure that the required asymmetry between giver and taker - that happens quite naturally in real life - can ever be solved so long as everybody can create more than one account. It would have to be implemented as some sentinel policing activity such as vote-rings (cartels) but on steem there is little punitive action that can be taken, apart from flagging. Any asymmetry (or unfairness) balances out with just 2 accounts, afaics.

·
·
·
·
·
·

"It's complicated by the fact that pretty much nobody involved in cryptocurrency understands jack-shit about economics and they get tied up in the fact that the way they want things to turn out is in no way driven by the mechanisms that they set up and know which are, mathematically, the most efficient."

Agreed, although not sure if they are mathematically efficient; most seem to go for coding efficiency instead.

Great discussion here, thanks

·

Steemit itself is still in beta.

·
·

This reply to any questions or criticism is apparently still in beta as well.

·

Careful buddy, you know how they get when we make wise and logical assertions based on our professional experiences in similar endeavors, that essentially get gas-lighted as "negativity" or "whining". I'll bring you a castigation trauma kit though, no smart man should be left on the battlefield alone. I've had just this sort of conversation with @inertia, over such things as the last breakdown, which looks like a dev left a local workbench test param in the code that made it all the way live. This is what #comments in code are for - "#following param should be reverted before deploy" and co-programming or peer review before typing git update and git commit, and git shit like that. But hey, basic entry level programming things like that were met with "peer reviews? that's the witnesses job." Okay, and I concede that ... to a point... but when there are dozens of undocumented changes (repeat need for comments in code) in a gazillion lines of code, I'd say it's kinda up to the code changing dev to at least make sure the changes can even be noticed for review.

So there's that.

To @inertia's credit though, my conversations with him, and his direct involvement in an improved test net, give me more confidence than I ever had in a steemit inc dev before his involvement there. He's wicked smaht.

·

You needed more than 30 days to run the testnet? If you thought it needed more testing, why didn't you activate your witness on the testnet?

·
·

The testnet went live for HF20 4 days ago. before that, it was running HF19

·
·
·

It also went live for HF20 on the 10th (2018-09-10 22:00:00 UTC):

https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/cbbec58a6b4a4e4dee142a5dd4227a03ce9c1989

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Until the real hardfork, every time the testnet starts, it bootstraps on HF19. Then it reaches the time when the hardfork is set to activate. So it's happened twice. Once on the 10th and again on the 20th.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Good thing there's an obvious place to know when all these starts and stops happen and we don't have to stop building our own projects and shepherding users in communities and explaining whats going on during outages and such long enough to also watch an off chain location for git commits just in case they randomly happen now and then :D

But still even if we DID notice random things in off chain places, 14 days is not 30. Just saying, from your link above:

Update testnet HF time

testnet-09102018
@mvandeberg
mvandeberg committed 14 days ago

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

There was also the initial announcement:

https://steemit.com/hardfork20/@steemitdev/hardfork-20-testnet-details

Related github:

https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/3a0f9448bb1e59af7835e444c80ea094aab627c2

So that one activated HF20 on 2018-08-27 17:00:00 UTC. I remember there being two. I guess there were three. I probably got that mixed up because of the halt.

·
·

As others have pointed out, it wasn't running for 30 days.

As the guy who is allegedly in charge of the testnet, why didn't you tell anyone that there were some major uncertainties and very low participation... i.e. - that this hard fork was not ready for deployment?

Also, as a STINC employee, why do you not address the exclusion of witnesses from the private channels where there is more accessibility to information, testing, and discussion?

You ask why I didn't activate my witness on the testnet?

  1. At #60 on the witness list, I have neither the financial incentive/support to robustly test the code nor do I have the influence to make a difference on hard fork acceptance.

  2. I have been intentionally excluded and ignored by the dev team that creates and proposes the hard forks to be considered, so I have little motivation to help them with testing.

  3. I had no plans to upgrade to version 0.20 anyway, unless it was already accepted by the top witnesses, which I cannot control. I do not approve of the hard forks that STINC has been proposing since last year, for the many reasons that I have already publicly stated.

The fact of the matter is - your guys screwed up the code, the top-20 witnesses didn't bother to test the code, and you went forward with deployment anyway, despite knowing about the negative RC balance problem. And you can't deny the fact that faulty code and unaccountable yes-men as top witnesses (who have the blessings of STINC, both publicly and privately) is a continual point of abject failure within our system.

So, if you have nothing else to add except more snark and deflection from the very real fact that the company you work for is vastly incompetent, then save it for someone who may actually give two shits about your poorly-crafted, preemptive damage control efforts.

And it's pretty ironic that this response had to come two days late.

Don't ya think?

·
·
·

At #60 on the witness list

That doesn't matter on the testnet. You could have been the top testnet witness.

I have been intentionally excluded and ignored by the dev team ...

Doesn't matter. The announcement was public.

I had no plans to upgrade to version 0.20 anyway ...

It appears you are saying that you also had no plans to test.


Apparently, everything is after the fact. Did you raise any of this when the testnet started?

·
·
·
·

Read those points again, but try comprehending the full sentences this time.

...I have neither the financial incentive/support to robustly test the code nor do I have the influence to make a difference on hard fork acceptance.

I have been intentionally excluded and ignored by the dev team that creates and proposes the hard forks to be considered, so I have little motivation to help them with testing.

I do not approve of the hard forks that STINC has been proposing since last year, for the many reasons that I have already publicly stated.

I had no desire to accept this hard fork, so why would I help test it for the people who constantly reject/ignore me and/or my input, at a cost to me that I cannot recoup via my position on the witness list? Do you ever consider context, or are you simply not capable of that? I mean...I made it pretty clear. I numbered the reasons and made them short and to the point.

And yes, I have raised concerns about hard fork proposals many times, including HF20, before and after the testnet began, as recently as the night before the HF20 update. But as usual, the STINC team ignored me and those concerns. Scroll up to the top comment...the very thread where you're commenting now.

·
·
·
·
·

And yes, I have raised concerns ...

But not as a post.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yeah, according to that post from two months ago, you had your doubts about HF20. You had no evidence, just a sinking feeling.

Remember, folks. When ats-david gets the heebiejeebies, you'd better pay attention. He's like some kind of prophet. He doesn't need evidence. Just listen to him and everything will be great.

·
·
·
·

Clearly @ats-david was right to be concerned. We can all now see the implementation was botched and may have been avoided by taking the time to get one major change done right.

This is a big step into helping more people understand how the "free" part of our transaction system truly works, which I always think is an important part of deconstructing automagical things to empower users to make the best choices they can.

I've been engaging in a lot of discussion with the users that may get the first bit of throttling to remember that any potential slowdowns are mostly a sign of the changes in accuracy coming into effect. It's important to look at the baseline over the next few days as an impermanent thing that will get a chance to settle, and that can be influenced on a personal level by thoughtful habits. For many who were here when we experienced the system searching for bandwidth equilibrium at the beginning of the year, they're ready for the improvements to come and can help reassure newer Steemians!

Basically, let's bring it 😎

·

Very well said and thanks for helping with the education process. I totally agree, I think it will be easier for users to understand how this freemium model works, and I also think it will enable developers to better understand what makes Steem such a valuable protocol with respect to powering applications. After all, freemium applications have dominated the internet landscape!

I really appreciate the transparency here to set reasonable expectations for what the next week or so might be like for Steem users as the new system finds equilibrium. To go even a bit further, would it be safe to say:

gradually transition them into the RC system

Means in practical terms:

Get used to seeing error messages when you're doing expensive things, and you don't have enough Steem Power to do them as often as you'd like to.

Same goes for:

the user experience will have to change

there will have to be a transition period during which users learn what operations consume a lot of RCs

Essentially, people with low SP should expect to see errors over the next week as the system finds an equilibrium, yes? Also, accounts with high SP but high usage (bots, etc) may also see errors. Is that correct and a good expectation to have?

My hunch is there could be some criticism of Steem (and therefore Steemit) being seen as a "pay to play" system due to these changes, but I think it's more accurate to say someone was always paying, it was often the wrong people (not the spammers, bot owners, etc). The hope is this will improve now that we have the functionality in place to treat specific operations differently.

·

...but I think it's more accurate to say someone was always paying,...

I agree with this completely. Someone is always paying, there is no way around it. There is a cost to running the blockchain, it is that simple. The costs being hidden to the average user does not mean they do not exist.

I always write that there is no direct cost per transaction on the STEEM blockchain, not that there is no cost. There is a cost, the question is who is bearing it.

People need to have a bit of patience as we transition away from the centralized world. This is a different arena than most are accustomed to. Many hate the centralized systems where a corporate entity bears the cost of the servers, etc... in exchange for the data they sell. Well, someone has to pay.

Freemium is what people are use to, it is just a matter of trying to find a way to get to that point.

·
·

But doesn't this also inefficiently make use of existing resources? For example if someone with 1 milion SP is only using 0.01% of their RC's, vs someone who has like 3 sp but has formerly been a very active contributor of content and is now restrained....? Is that the best use of resources to now cut off the latter?

I'm prepared to alter our account creation procedures to fit within the new HF and RCs.

As larger stakeholders (there are numerous that fly under the radar) may end up abusing the RC system with spawning free accounts, I'd like to see a zero (as close to zero as possible given the calculation) there from all witnesses, at least for the initial time period (let's say until 2019). Let them burn their STEEM. We can't afford to set too high until we observe the behavior of users/stakeholders.

I'm so excited! Both in a good and a bad way.

One one side, the new updates will be amazing and I'm very much interested in how RCs will play out.

But on the other side, I don't know how RCs will play out and on the Testnet, things were sometimes very funky, which is obviously normal.

But.. I'm ready!

Witness @therealwolf - Standing by!

·

Oh yeah, gif time!

·
·

Did someone say gif time? 😊

So tomorrow we'll be...


via GIPHY

·

Lol, amen brother! Perfect gif.

·
·

As @bluengel said - may the hardfork be with us!

·
·
·
·

Haha let's go!

may the hardfork be with us !

·

Reading you comment too quicly is not really a good idea.

·
·

tenor.gif

why so serious ?

Can we please for the love of god have this pop up when someone does not have enough resource credits to do something? FB_IMG_1537850026662.jpg

·

Fucking Genius

Guess I'll see if I can get a Witness server rolling on HF20 and spend my last $150 online dollars running the thing.. I have faith in this update and hope it goes well.

Awesome. I am hoping for a smooth transition tomorrow. @c0ff33a and I have been running 20.2 for a few days now. Big things are coming for the platform and this is setting the stage.

The RC sounds interesting I hope it will work, however the fact that people will need to learn about RC like they need to learn about voting power, is another complexity for users.

Good luck tomorrow everyone. And may Steem live on!

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

·

Tried to play - via - open in new tab - but it did not work? - it goes to your link address ok but the mp3 shows 000 time on the player

·
·

Sorry bad audio

I have the same curiosity for some time about RCs and UX, and until now I haven't found an explanation for it.

I know this has nothing to do with the hard fork itself, but it has to do with the UX.

How will a user know how many RCs s(he) has left? Will tools like steemd (and others) begin to update to reflect the switch from bandwidth to RCs? Anyone can give an ETA for that?

The other curiosity I have. Will Dapps begin to show the cost in RCs of various operations? Especially since the cost can fluctuate.

Load and clear.
Let's rock the Decentralised world 👍👍

Posted using Partiko Android

Go Steem Go!

tumblr_o7b5y15mlu1uluepno4_400.gif

·

Every time I see this I want to tie that horribly abusive and ignorant dog owner under a helicopter by his armpits and dangle him over an active volcano, maybe with an oops cable attachment malfunction along the way for good measure.

·
·

Unlimited edit! 😋😋😋

By the winds that blow, the changes will be for the better. We hope so. Tomorrow will be a great day.

·

No sé hermano, algunas cosas buenas vendrán, pero me preocupa lo que estoy leyendo sobre los comentarios. Al parecer la emisión de ellos tendrá un alto costo del RC. Como dice el dicho, "amanecerá y veremos". Pero eso no me cuadra para nada. ¿dónde quedará la interacción entonces? ¿el feedback?

·
·

Tal parece que los nuevos usuarios y aquellos con un poder de voto bajo, se verán muy afectados. Eso es preocupante. Por muy iluso que suene, espero que las cosas sean para mejor, bro. La interacción es vital, no lo niego, todo eso te pone a pensar demás. Como bien dices, mañana será otro día donde sabremos si será beneficioso o no.

·

May the four winds blow us safely home...

·
·

So be it!

Great! I have high hopes for the RC system hopefully everything works out well and there's no need to revert it!

How do you buy an account creation token with RC and then give it to a friend or someone that wants to join? What's the process? Was this explained and I missed it somewhere along the way?

·

We have no plans to release a user interface for account creations. As we pointed out in the post, Account Creation tokens will be incredibly expensive in terms of RC, and so only something we expect to be used by DApp developers with large SP holdings who will not require a user interface. That being said, as it is an open system, nothing is stopping anyone from building a user interface for this system.

·
·

Thanks for the clarification! Crossing fingers for a successful fork! Just don't cross the streams and everything should be fine! :^)

Pre-HF20, we can delegated SP for bandwidth purposes. Will there be a way to do something similar with just the RC?

·

It will work the same way.

·
·

Meaning that we’ll be able to delegate RC?

·
·
·

When you delegate SP to an account, that account's RC will increase your's will decrease.

Exciting times ahead! I love how professional @steemitblog is now. <3

we I'm as ready as I can be. :)

lots go for a rosy sunny day type of Fork, then head to the beach. :)

I hope everything will be OK!

On a less serious note, who here has ever tried eating with a soft fork? I don't recommend it with noodles...

Tge long awaited update is finally here.

Im glad i was able to wait the time, many have left the steem Blockchain looking for better pastures elsewhere, hopefully , this update is big enough to draw them back.

Steem onward.

Thank you for the update on what is the eve of the Hard Fork for me (or close enough). While I do note quite a bit of uncertainty as to how things will look once HF 20 will take effect, I'd rather know that is a possibility than not know at all, so thank you for that.

I have been thinking that RCs in particular would have the earliest most profound effect on users, so I'm glad to have that spelled out. I'm wondering if there's a lower SP threshold below which someone can reasonably anticipate issues? Or is it basically we won't know until it happens? Since we're working towards an equilibrium, and transitioning from the old way to the new way, I guess I'm wondering if that will allow the vast majority of current users, the red fish, to operate as normal, even if gut is all you've got to go off.

From all accounts, I understand RCs to be a necessary transition and something that is more equitable and accurate, so here's wishing us all a good Hard Fork tomorrow. :)

·

Unfortunately we can't know until it happens. My gut is that if people are used to posting, commenting and voting a lot, they will run into issues slightly sooner at first and if they keep using Steem that way over time they will hit the limits faster and faster as the RC system kicks in. Those who aren't power users probably won't encounter many issues at all. That being said, if people adjust their behavior in anticipation of the changes and are more careful with how much they post and comment, they might not encounter any issues and there may be fewer issues generally. That is the problem, we have no idea how people are going to react to the system, which makes it impossible to predict what will happen. It's a totally decentralized, free market system.

·
·

Hey, @andrarchy. Thanks for responding.

What would constitute commenting, posting and commenting a lot? For instance, I'm a participant in @abh12345's engagement league, so we're encouraged to engage. There's some folks who are averaging between 200-500 comments a week (one much more than that), along with 4-12 posts, and somewhere between 100-300 upvotes. Is that considered a lot? Or is that one of the things we'll be finding out?

Most of the folks who do this are minnow-sized or smaller, so they're not high SP accounts. They're doing this, in part, because of the exposure commenting on a larger scale can bring to their own posts, and they're trying to spread their votes as much as they can, too.

·
·
·

Fortunately for some, they receive delegations from Asher which would increase their RCs, but it will be interesting to find out!

·
·
·
·

Hey, @beeyou. NIce to see you, as always. How are things, other than busy, busy, busy? :)

You and andrarchy pretty much answered within seconds of one another so I'm not sure if you saw his reply to the comment you just replied on or not. I'd encourage you to take a look at it if you haven't and tell me what you think once you have.

·
·
·
·
·

Thanks for the notice @glenalbrethsen. Oh, life doesn't seem to be slowing down any. I was away on vacation for a couple weeks and just now catching up. Still behind for the most part and I suspect I will always be so. I'm glad to read your wife is doing better. :)

I support the idea behind RC consumption and user behavior. I know engagement is encouraged but it is meaningful commenting that should be encouraged more so than daily conversing. I too am guilty for leaving my share of spammy comments here and there, ask @headchange, but that might be my one or two comments for that day. I probably had my share of daily conversing in my earlier redfish days and hope that I am not being hypocritical of it now. Perhaps my perception changed as I learned more about this platform. It would be interesting to see the results on the league going forward, for sure. Perhaps nothing will change afterall? :)

·
·
·
·
·
·

I believe things will change just a little. I rarely make the top 10 to 20 but when I do it means there has been a lot of chatting going on.
Asher is not the only one who makes contest based on building up comments. Actually just look at the NewbiePalooza as one example.
Also now that I think about it look what happened as an example of why this may be necessary.
I am pretty sure I won't have a lot of issues. But do think this will have impact on the Engagment leagues
Glad I found the post. Good to have the heads up.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yes, I remember that type of engagement level from my heydays and making it to the top. Those days are long gone and now I just check the bottom of the list to see if I made it on or not. ;)

Lol on the newbiepalooza. Yes, that one was to get more user engagement but it was also a contest. People commenting there do so for a chance to win prizes. It is different than daily conversing, imo. I did a lot of that myself in the early days, but I've become friends with many of them and those type of conversations are now on discord. Can't say that is good or bad, but we are definitely not using RCs!

·
·
·
·
·
·

Well, there's no way of knowing until it happens, apparently, so it could be nothing happens, or people's ability to do things improves. I feel like I'm being warned, though. Beware. At any rate, I could have asked how much we need to put in if we want to do more but I figured I'd save that for later when we might know what's happening and have some better answers. I'm feeling like all the leaguers could be affected, which saddens me. If it ends up being that low SP, who has been using the platform the most because they want to earn SP since they didn't have it to begin with and don't have the resources to invest end up being reduced or shut out, while those with the highest SP who aren't using the platform other than to delegate end up with the all the RCs—it just seems to me that there will be a lot more unhappy people, as indiscriminate, impartial, or fair as that may be.

As it is, I'm less worried about myself (though I'm wondering just how low this goes), because I have invested some. It's not tens of thousands, but it's more than a few hundred bucks. I'm not sure how anyone could be expected to put in more just to use the STEEM social media platform.

So, there, I've said it, and now we get to see what happens next, and hopefully, the warning I was feeling I was getting will all be in my head. :)

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Looks like we got our answer! So many small fishes now having to check RCs before commenting/upvoting. I'm just going to wait and see what happens once equilibrium is achieved.

·
·
·
·

Dropping a comment so I can follow the conversation. This sounds like something that could have a huge impact. Makes me very grateful for the sp I have.

·
·
·
·
·

Hard for me to follow along even after dropping a comment. It works when I am online at the time, but once off..lost cause.

·
·
·

Let me put it another way, if after the RC system goes into effect those activities run down your RCs faster than they did bandwidth, then by definition you were taking advantage of the inaccuracies in the bandwidth system to overburden the blockchain and you were passing the associated costs onto your fellow Steemians. It's a dynamic system that will be changing all the time forever. Specific numbers cannot be given. It is totally impartial. All it cares about is how much resources are being consumed by the network, who is consuming the resources, and how much stake they have. All of those variables will be constantly changing, which is why specific predictions can't be made. If you want to consume more resources than everyone else, then you have to have more STEEM powered up. That was clearly the intent behind bandwidth, and that same intent is behind RCs. Bandwidth is just worse at it. If you believe in Steem and want to make it sustainable, then you will have to adjust your behavior or power up more STEEM.

·
·
·
·

Yet at the same time, if comments at a human social interaction level turn out to be too expensive for the blockchain to handle, that's a real problem for the sustainability of Steem itself. Essentially what it says is that the current technological level of Steem is insufficient to handle its core functions.

I don't think that's likely to happen but I don't see how you can be essentially blasé about it.

·
·
·
·

Okay. Thank you for the information and clarification. We'll see how things shake out then, and hope that all goes well with the HF 20 in general, and RCs in specific.

·
·
·
·

Well said. I think that's really the crux of it. People need to power up some STEEM and actually partake in the contributed value of this blockchain rather than trying to solely exploit it at someone else's expense. (not directed at anyone in particular). But really, way too many people here are focused on selling out their steem rather than powering it up to become partners with the community instead of exploiters of it.

·
·

That being said, if people adjust their behavior in anticipation of the changes and are more careful with how much they post and comment, they might not encounter any issues and there may be fewer issues generally.

So, just like with the reduction in the daily vote target, the average user will need to monitor how often they interact with other social media users on the Steem blockchain. And just as the vote target reduction added to the cognitive load of users (specifically newer ones), so will this new RC system. It seems that we keep increasing system complexity at the cost of Steem user experience.

This doesn’t actually sound like a scaling solution when you make these kinds of comments. Is less use of the blockchain the goal of these hard forks? Because that’s not really how you solve scaling problems.

And if these were the actual goals and/or the expected outcomes for the protocol changes, why are we only hearing about it now, once the hard fork has been accepted by witnesses?

·
·

My problem with RC credit system is:

Votes and token actions will require relatively few RCs, for example, while comments will consume far more RCs. Again, this is based entirely on the amount of computational resources these activities consume.

Especially the part that talks about Comments does this mean I am going to eventually need to balance my cost of casting a vote, verse leaving a comment on an individual post? Because all the resources are coming from one place or will vote power rebuild as it does at the current rate, and will we now need to wait for a second rebuild of RC to make a comment? Like glen above I sometimes like to leave long comments, and or lots of them.

I didn't initially join steemit for the crypto. In fact I still have only a very limited understanding of it. I do understand that today and all the yesterdays I was on steemit I could comment as much as I wanted, but had to limit my votes. After tomorrow am I still going to be able to comment all I want?

·
·
·

While I could easily be wrong about this, I strongly suspect that any established user who comments at a human pace won't have any issues with RCs, any more than we have any issue with bandwidth now.

Very-low-SP users could have an issue, and low-SP bots will definitely have an issue.

·
·
·
·

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. then.

·
·
·

All you want until you run out of resource credits, and it's not entirely clear if you will be able to quickly deduce just exactly what that means in concrete terms, or if any interface will have any way to immediately track it. Look how long it took for various front ends and tools sites to show you your voting power at all. Now this? We'll all be guessing for a while, which is why the warnings on this page and others like it just say "unexpected somethings might seem messed up for you for an unknown amount of time" and that's basically what any uncomfortable, inconvenient truth comments on this page are pointing out as a problem for our user base and those of us who live in the communities trying to explain it to them as witnesses, and community leaders they look to on a daily basis in the absence of reliable information from "above".

·
·
·
·

Do you think it will take long for a steemd type bar, or a steemworld circle system to be developed? The RC thing is going to be the hardest thing to get used to at first I guess. We will see what will be.

·
·
·
·
·

Votes are a transaction that has an RC price as are post/comments and wallet transfers and so on.

Yes they are related.

HOW they will replenish and how many votes and comments per cycle of recharge you can make have direct correlation to stake weight.

It remains poorly documented and to some degree unarticulated as to how "fast is recharge/replenish" and how "many per charge" of a thing a user will have - today for example we know what voting power is in relation to bandwidth and can say to some degree you will use 100% over 10 votes a 24 hour cycle at 100% each, with the slider enabling some throttling of your utilization as it works now, to enable using your 100% " vote bandwidth "fuel" at a better mpg so to speak, as a metaphor.

We just don't seem to have clear path to what this will mean after the HF.

Is that good news? No it should be made clear to users in plain and certain terms.

Has it been? No, because everyone who should be able to tell us, seems to at best be guessing and at worst not providing info at all.

Further, the interfaces we eventually developed to show voting power percentages on various front ends and tools sites won't work with this anymore, without repairs and changes to their code. So it's going to be "surprise surprise surprise" for a few days to weeks while "things balance" which is doublespeak in code, for we'll tell you once we figure it out after people start using it and it plays itself out.

As you aptly surmised in the post this question originated from, @bashadow , "We will see what will be."

And that's why many are expressing concern on this page about pushing out so many changes at once, and not even being able to explain them by the people who invented them.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Thanks, now we play the waiting game. I kind of feel sorry for the front end people, I really like @stemchillers vote gauge, gonna be sad to see it maybe not work. He will get one up I am sure that will work fine again I am sure.

On the plus side, maybe some big votes when the sliders don't work like they used to. ;-}

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

It's going to be quite a show for a few hours/days/weeks/months?

I only need one hardfork for ma spaghetti!

Posted using Partiko Android

·

My spa-ghett-i

buh buh buh buh ba ba buh ba buh ba

My spa-ghett-i

http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/theknack8.shtml

This is great.
The awaited time is finally here, and we are glad to welcome the new face of Hardfork 20.

Keep the fire burning.

Bring it on! And thank you.
SirKnight.

Posted using Partiko Android

Hope HF20 will further improve our blockchain. All the best!

Change is good... as we all know not everyone can be kept happy with change... but, without change we stunt our growth as a community. If we do not change as an individual we can also stunt our on growth! I am looking forward to this change as it is an attempt to move us in the right direction! That is the key... moving forward... sometimes you have to take 2 steps forward and 1 step back to move and progress. Learning from that step back is the key! Thank you to the team for double checking if not triple checking these changes!

Hard-forks we know about in advance are my favourite kind.

This will hopefully increase the already exceptional capacity of this chain to be something that can handle even more TX/second.

I'm excited.

·

How can this increase the tx per sec?

·
·

My blockchain knowledge is limited, but if we're allocating the true computational cost of a transaction to its bandwidth/resource credit, this pool becomes more balanced, instead of having "cheap" tx use a lot.

·
·
·

Alright interesting

I am one of those people who are resistant to change. You do bring up so good points though. I hope this will be as good as you make it sound.

Here comes the testing phase whether I like it or not. 8-)

·

I'm guessing we will be about to trade tokens again after this update. My friend hasn't been able to send me what he owes me.

Good luck guys. I’m fully behind the direction we’re headed.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Let’s do this, I’m ready for this 😎

For the past few weeks now, we've been talking about Hard fuck 20, and finally we are few hours close. It's a good thing that many things about the steem block chain is about to change. I just hope it goes well with the RC integration. More power to your elbow as you take the bold step in few hours...Cant wait to see the success.

Watch for major price action once this launches and exchanges begin to open up again for deposits.

As of this reply, only true means of exchange are blocktrades and RUDEX.STEEM.

The SteemItblog should get a avatar.

·

Crap now I'm going to be up all night, going back and forth between shaking my head and laughing my ass off. Hrm, sounds like familiar territory....

exciting times!

In other words, if you're running a comment bot, it would be really good if you turned it off for a while.

·

YES. Finally, an institutionalized solution to force the hand of spam bots.

Great! I cant wait

Posted using Partiko Android

Steem team thanks a lot and appreciated!

Posted using Partiko iOS

wow, it took me quite some time to read through and understand the information shared. I am patiently waiting for HF20 to happen. I will provide feedback about bugs and my experience if any after the hardfork has taken place.
Thanks for the update

This is big. I hope it goes smoothly. Some will say we shouldn't change so much at once, but then we don't want lots of hardforks. Onwards and upwards

I admit, I'm slightly confused. As a regular, standard user, what exactly is going to change for me? A lot of the technical explanation flew right over my head.

·

I am glad not to be the only one confused here. Plus I am pretty new to Steemit. What will this hardfork do the the average user ?

·
·

It doesn't do much for you. It just makes the blockchain more efficient and signing up new users takes less time. It's not exciting for you or me, but it's a necessary step for the chain's growth.

Thank you, @steemitBlog for the heads up!

we will be able to enable unlimited post editing on steemit.com!
@SteemitBlog

Does this mean that posts made before HF20 can be edited?

Does the RC bandwidth have a marketplace? Can we trade it like we can trade RAM on EOS?

I hope those increasing fees will not give new users even more bandwith issues.

·

Arguably, they inevitably have to.

What is being priced higher? Comments, which are pointedly one of the few ways that new users can get involved with activity on the blockchain without the risk of creating something via a post that no one may never see.

What is being priced lower? Votes, which earn new users no money and which have no discernible impact on their personal experience (or anyone else's, because they'll be below the dust limit) and token transactions (which new users won't have any to trade, and are even less likely to have after the hardfork which reduces even the initial SP they might otherwise start with under HF 19).

How could new users not be expected to be bearing the brunt of the new RC pricing algorithm?

Well, should be fun! This is an unsexy and much needed update to help this chain grow. I'm looking forward to it.

Improved signup has been at the top of the new user experience since the beginning. This is a great fix and sets us up well into the future.

Whatever was to be expected, we surely didnt expect this:
1.JPG

Can you guys give us back our VP? Nobody spent it, it is the hardfork bug.

well that sucked

WTF , I can make only four comments now. Though they are allowing me to comment in every 3 seconds. So funny😀😁☺ 🤓😛

Very informative - Resteemed - Followed

Good to go, Good to go, Good to go Captain
Cant wait to get Served !!!