RE: Community communication of the code
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I’m not sure it is possible to communicate the HF date this time as the decision was made that it will happen as soon as consensus reached (because had been delayed and delayed and delayed).
Is this a sound process? Nay.
No, because transparency matters and information is gold. To those who read, at least.
Yes, because that’s how consensus works on the more core level.
This time not much “law” changes, with the exception of the 30 days witness voting lock on VP power, and as an aside almost the conversion of the DAO stake which starts. But beyond that, it’s mostly an optimization update. One of little interest to most. One following “code is law” (super majority met means fork that sh*t). And maybe for this type of upgrade that’s the more apt model.
... on the blockchain, I believe that everyone who should know something and it is their responsibility
I agree with this. It is both the voters’ and witnesses’ task to inform, the onus in this type of society probably more on the voters even. Should you know? No, not necessarily but if you give two flying fraks about what rules govern your presence then maybe you should occasionally do some homework. Should we expect everyone to be able to dig through the code and discover the date when a HF is supposed to happen? Not everyone but maybe in a decentralized society this is one of those where many could discover (and build that countdown) and maybe should do just that.
Clearly we live and operate in a “dual citizenship” society where there’s users and those who codify the magic. Informing is a great exercise for those who code, should be a must for those who decide to run that code and depend on votes from the users — who are also owners. But maybe in this early stage (still) that ownership also requires a degree of pro activity. Just like the more traditional stakeholder will make a better (hopefully) yearly vote if they informed themselves more than just with each quarterly report and the highly polished AGM talks.
I think the DAO one is pretty big - from the little I understand on it :D
I don't think it is useful to expect people to dig through code as users, but frontends have coders that can at least inform the basics to their users.
I think that for larger investors to come into the space, more visibility on what they are buying will be demanded.
I am going to guess this would have happened if the HF had an actual date, if this refers to the countdown.
If it refers to more, decentralized issues where the operators will decide whether providing that information is of value to... themselves. Will they slip out of the active witnesses (top20) if they don’t? Will it consolidate or strengthen their position if they do? Is the ROI worth the effort???
Technically not. By which I don’t mean code complexity wise, but that the decision to use that stake for the DAO was made when we forked away. No one submitted a HF which burnt that stake and as such that wasn’t really a topic beyond social media arguing.
In this fork the required mechanic to make the stake usable, within the DAO mechanics, is integrated. But AFAIK it doesn’t change the DAO or the level of daily available funds which stays at 1% of the available liquid DAO funds.
Yes, I’m thinking/arguing semantically here. On purpose. :D
But on a general level I do agree with the need for transparency and improved information.