You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Community communication of the code

in LeoFinancelast month

This hard fork is not one that will be discussed much since it was mostly back end stuff. The biggest change, from the users perspective, is the 30 day delay in new HP applying to governance. Outside of that, this a technical fork that is focused upon the operation efficiency on the back end.

The next fork, that could see some fireworks. I think the biggest issues to be discussed will be whether to change the power down time from 13 weeks to something different. There is a divide on that end with passion on each (all) sides.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Sort:  

Yep, this is right - but I still think it would be a good idea to have everyone (most) know that ther eis a hardfork coming. I I have found it interesting how few active people actually know.

The next fork, that could see some fireworks.

I hope so. The powerdown period should be on the cards and there are many people who feel strongly both ways. I am still unsure what is better, but perhaps shorter would work in favor. The other option would be to have the ability to stake with non-voting stake into the wallet with the option for a fast powerdown - possibly at a burn cost.

The other option would be to have the ability to stake with non-voting stake into the wallet with the option for a fast powerdown

Actually, that feature always has existed since the beginning. It's just the "saving account" section in the wallet. Whose stake stored there never had influence in the voting system and only requires three days to convert that stake in liquid form again.

In the very beginning in the Steem blockchain, that stake stored there used to earn interests. But after a little while, in one of those HFs they changed the rules and code to turn out the saving account financially useless beyond barely have that stake a bit safer from a potential hack. But then, people seems to not use that section of the wallet anymore basically because of its now financial futility. Despite the extra layer of security against hackings that it offered at the time and still does.

Actually, that feature always has existed since the beginning.

No, that is just a savings account - it doesn't have any staking option involved. I used to use it often to lock up liquids from potential theft. Haven't used it in about 6 months though I think.

No, that is just a savings account - it doesn't have any staking option involved.

Uhm well, then maybe I'm not understanding well what you are referring to with "staking" in the context of having Hive with non-voting stake into the wallet.

Would you care to shed some light on the concept? :)

Well, potentially that savings wallet could be used to stake rewards for a non-voting return, rather than have people vote on crap because they must. As I see it, there should be a premium to stake, so the return would be competitive, but not as good as average curation.

Well, potentially that savings wallet could be used to stake rewards for a non-voting return

Well yeah, that's what I said in my first comment. But wait, with "stake rewards for a non-voting return" you mean also having the capability to generate and earn some sort of interests or something like that to increase that stake automatically with no voting or curating activity? Otherwise, I'm afraid I still don't get it.

As I said before all Hive you "manually" store in the already existent 'saving account' section of the wallet, currently requires barely three days to convert that stake liquid again to sell it, powerup to influence the voting and curation earnings or whatever. As apparently you were implying to want that as a new feature. At the moment you won't get any ROI storing stake there. But if Hive Devs restore the ability to earn interests in it, I guess we'd have what you were talking about.

Therefore, I suspect we wouldn't have none of the polarization or discussions about the need to shorten the powerdown period anymore.

I mean to get a return that doesn't require voting, but doesn't allow for governance decisions. The interest won't be attractive enough in comparison to voting directly, or do you propose increasing the percentage of interest that comes from the inflation pool?

I mean to get a return that doesn't require voting, but doesn't allow for governance decisions.

Well, then stake stored in the saving account is perfect for that. Since it wouldn't have influence in any of both.

or do you propose increasing the percentage of interest that comes from the inflation pool?

Yeah pretty much that. Basically allocate inflation away from the rewards pool and into the saving accounts would be enough.