RE: The forking attitude of fears and wishes
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Dreams for HF25:
- SMTs with internal market
- NFTs
- Witness vote decay
That is all (for now).
Well, maybe there’s one more thing: a commitment to target two HFS yearly.
0
0
0.000
Looks like a decent list to start things off :)
Two HFs a year would be a good goal, make sure that there is always something in development.
I would be happy with only that. I'm not sure whether NFTs were done already by previous crew, but at this time in crypto they are relatively vital to have for a base layer chain. But those top two items would take the chain to a whole new level.
2HFs yearly would probably lead to smaller forks, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but also offer plenty of time: 4 months to code, 2 months to test and fix. And after HF25 you probably need a month of occasional updates to optimize too.
What happened this HF is unforgiveable in the sense that dapps operators should have been more accountable and tested more. The onus needs to shift more towards them (update your code or face user backlash) than the witnesses delaying to allow them more time.
A slightly more rigid release framework could IMHO help here.
Yep, vote decay would be a "nice to have" thing - top 2 are important.
I agree - hopefully in the future there is the "list" of dapps that can sign off earlier - kjust as a check - but I think that part of the problem is that most users don't understand that if a HF happens and the dapps don't work - it is the dapp that is the issue - they think it is a failed fork.
Regardless, better processes need to be put in place.
I think there were issues on multiple levels, not just the dapp operators, like not enough updated nodes to test with. But those are flearns on the road to HF25, which will be only our second genuine fork after split.
But if that was an issue dapps should have raised that earlier. Or spun up an own test node (if they had the financial capabilities to do such). It shouldn't be the responsibility of only one dev shop to provide that infrastructure.
Is it possible for example, for me to run a node for the month prior to a HF for dapps to leverage ? Just thinking if we could croudsource a couple.
Yes, totally feasible. I do think @howo also asked for people to add to the test net infra in at least one post.
And now with snapshots replays would be less of an issue as well whenever updating, resetting the testnet node.
I don't know how to do it personally, but perhaps I could get a couple people together to fund a collective node for a short period of time prior to HF.
I would like to add one more thing that is powerdown period must be 04 weeks.
I didn't add that because I have no problem with the power down time. 13 Weeks is still much faster than when investing in most funds or in projects.
When FB went public, the investors couldn't even sell their shares in the first 90 days.
Most - not all - people who advocate for shorter power down time have zero clue about investing. At best they have a little trading experience. Your need for fast liquidity is not an argument of any value for the chain. The longer the power down, the higher the external trust factor. This chain started with 104 weeks of power down.
The 104 weeks is what set Steem apart; and one of the main reasons it caught my attention in the first place.
It's something Larimer still advocates. I would also love to see options with better rewards for longer staking periods: 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, aso.
You could still power down but your PD would be much longer as well.
Wholeheartedly agree. SMTs gives us scope to try these experiments; so hopefully that'll be the cornerstone of HF25.
!ENGAGE 25
ENGAGEtokens.