Source
We are ahead of schedule on our roadmap and managed to complete the blockchain code prior to the end of July 2022 which was originally planned. Witnesses are already upgrading their nodes and the changes will go live 2022-07-22 23:00:00 UTC, only when enough consensus witnesses have upgraded.
There are three issues that have been included in this major version update. The changes were announced in our previous post:
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@blurtofficial/blurt-second-anniversary
We will relist them again below for the readers' convenience. Most notable is issue 119, which steers Blurt towards further differentiation from other Graphene chains by fostering a flatter consensus model, whereby consensus will now be determined by your VP instead of 30VP which is currently in the Graphene standard. Under current rules, large accounts greatly influence consensus by being able to vote 30x with their entire stake. Under the new rules, the voting power of the stake is distributed evenly across each witness vote. This should make for some interesting vote choices in the weeks ahead.
Issue 119 - Deleverage Witness Voting
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/119
This issue alters the current consensus model from the full VP across up to 30 witnesses, to the VP being evenly distributed across each witness being voted upon. Thus, if a user votes for N witnesses, each of those witnesses will have a vote worth VP/N. When added up, the total VP is being used rather than 30x its value. The maximum number of witness votes possible remains unchanged. This will make the consensus model much fairer, and deleveraged from the 30x original. One consequence is that medium-sized VP accounts voting for just a few witnesses will have a stronger voice. It should also allow witnesses to make their own upgrade path decisions with reduced duress from large stakeholders. Combined with the removal of proxy voting for witnesses, this should ensure more active participation in governance by all active Blurt members.
As an example, if you have 60k BP and vote for just one witness, then that witness will get your whole vote-weight of 60k. If you vote for two witnesses, they will each get half your BP, or 30k each; and if you vote for 10 witnesses, they shall each get a vote-weight of 6k. Hence, the total weight of your witness votes will be equal to your total powered-up stake.
Issue 121 - Proposal System Upgrades
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/121
When Blurt was first launched there were several 10-year proposals put in place under the guise of test proposals, but these in essence were attack vectors to drain the proposal system if it wasn't noticed at launch. These still remain in place today and only serve to make the proposal system look spammy. The idea behind this issue is to expire unfunded proposals after 180 days to keep the proposal list tidy and manageable.
The current proposal initiation fee is 10 BLURT which is extremely cheap and may see the proposal system abused for visibility and other unintended reasons, the base fee will be increased to 1000 BLURT to ensure that the proposal system is used only for proposals that have already been discussed prior on a standard blog post and already have some indication of support.
In addition, the maximum proposal length will be hardcoded at 2 years to keep things fresh and relevant.
Issue 119 will also apply to the proposal system, currently, you can vote proposals with your full stake each time, after the upgrade each proposal you vote will reduce your VP equally.
Issue 175 - Remove Governance Proxy
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/175
It has been observed on Steem that an attacker can reward the community with upvotes in exchange for users setting their witness proxy to them. This is essentially vote-buying and preys on desperate users. Removal of the proxy will ensure that this form of centralised vote buying cannot occur. As noted above, this will also mean that individual users need to take personal responsibility for their governance votes.
Blurt is again making history, by bringing about fresh codebase changes, once again daring to step out from the norm as it once did by taking the bold steps of removing stable coins, downvotes, and the gameable reputation parameter, as well as adding fees. In addition to all of this, Blurt will now have the flattest and fairest consensus model in the Graphene ecosystem!
Follow @blurtofficial as we pioneer the future together!
Wow! Powerful, fair and clever changes! Blurt is truly becoming more and more unique and attractive! My sincerest compliments! 💯
HARDFORK 8 at block 21073080
And we did it! 🥳 Blurt runs now on an HF 8. Also want to mention that, I really appreciate everyone who supports me as a witness. Seriously big thank you! 😎
I think so as well hahaha
I think this is also an important and interesting change compared to other Graphene chains
@nalexadre: Blogger & Witness on Blurt ;)
Those are really revolutionary changes. The one about witnesses is well noticed and exceptional to blurt. Proposals also shouldn't extract money all the time from the system, 6 months is a fair amount of time to wait for the proposal to be funded, and increasing the price will make people think twice before posting one. The same about proxy that could be played with. Very important changes, thanks a lot for managing all that !
This is excellent to see. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you and keep up the good work!
This is a good news and great improvement.
All thanks to the officials 🙌,
I think I need to go vote some witness now :-) .
Blurt is finally taking their own way with a substantial changes. I’m happy to see this kind of development as we are trying a lot of new things
I’m really happy to be part of the witness team as a Developer this is a wonderful experience for me and I will continue offering all my best for the Blockchain
So to clarify, when this was posted the fork was already completed?
I do like the witness change, although I now need to go unvote a lot of witnesses now.
The code was compiled and some witnesses had updated when this was posted. Our dev was ready with it sooner than expected and @saboin only had a weekend window to compile.
Note: Im going around clicking on various different posts with comments and I can see them however oddly enough, I cannot see any comments made in any of the BlurtOfficial posts. What is up with that?
I noticed this too and am going through their replies to see what has been commented. I imagine it is some kind of error because it's pinned. I've noticed errors with pinned posts before.
Glad to know I am not the only one experiencing this.
https://blurt.blog/@small1axe/rfgzy2
Sorry ,.. i found a bug and (ab)used it in the comment's section of this post ,.. to attract some techies , so they could solve this ,... as they did .
( like muting me makes a difference , lol ,... not ) ;-)
///
In short, in regards to 119, "if you don't got the $ your word ain't shit".
More power to the large stake holders. If the little guy (the majority) wants to change something they will need to group up together their vote weight to make a change vs the large stake holders. But usually the rich man can just power up a bunch and counter.
Having a proxy could help with that. But they want to remove that too.
The change with 119 on proposals will make the little guy's vote inconvenient. Save your vp i say and choose one or two witnesses that you really like little ones.
Sorry my small account brothers and sisters, the bucket is about to get more craby.
I lightly discussed 175
ISSUE #175 - Remove Governance Proxy | Is having a proxy vote for you good or bad?
I actually like this change and see it different than you. It gives more power to the little stakeholder. Under the old way we got 30x the amount of our stake to vote with.
So someone with 1,000,000 staked would get 30,000,000 in voting say.
Someone with 10,000 staked would get 300,000 in voting say
Under the new rules the 1,000,000 only equals 1,000,000 and the 10,000 only 10,000. The 30x multiplication was insane to give large stakeholders that much more say.Now they will have to be more selective (as will we all) and they can't dictate all the top slots as they could potentially before.
Exactly this!
You give me something to ponder on.
What you say rings true.
I think I am mixing in some feelings.
I understand the power differences with these changes. Already I have seen the changes made at the witnesses page. Even @double-u is showing to be much higher than before. A clear sign he has much organic support?
I guess here is where the feeling lays:
I don't trust megadrive
Yes, I'm not surprised that double-u has climbed in the ranks. He built a lot of good will here before he had his melt down and many have stood by his side out of loyalty regardless of his actions of late. Loyalty is ironic like that at times, where one who would now destroy something still gets support from those who wouldn't wish for the thing to be destroyed.
I'm hopeful that as time goes by many of you who have a sense of unease with megadrive can at a minimum set it aside and judge his new actions solely on their own merit. And ideally over time give him a chance to display he is capable of self reflection and choosing better paths.
It had to have been difficult for him to reverse himself so drastically and do so publicly. His actions since then have been conciliatory despite most often being met with hostility, some deserved and a lot not so much.
I'm not in your shoes or some of the others who were most offended, so it isn't my place to determine when or if such a thing can occur.
All I can do in my desire to see more acceptance is use myself as an example.
There have been times I've been so upset (mostly when I was younger) that my anger or fear was so great I did and said things that were an over the top response to the event(s). In hindsight I regretted my actions, and learned many times over the valuable lesson that a bell can't be unrung.
However, sometimes the bell that got rung one regrets can be replaced by a new bell if the person on the other end of that ringing is amenable to giving one another chance, even if warily at first. I can say for myself that there have been many gracious people in my life who chose not to write me off because of an action or response I made in haste, and my gratefulness was and is quite humbling for the compassion extended to myself.
I've used such dynamics from my own horror stories of life to come to an understanding that regardless of how difficult it might be, I have to try to be for others what it is my heart cries for them to be for myself. Often it is for naught, but I have to honor that desire in my own spirit and my only control in that arena is in my own approach.
I have never destroyed, I do not destroy and I will not destroy!
When will you finally stop your lying and damaging my reputation!
"fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice "...ain't ever gonna fucking happen...
It's the same what is on latest chains, all cosmos chains, dtube and even the new fork tipmeacoffee, all have 1/n voting.
Just give some time to it and see how changes happens.
No choice but to see what happens. Even with the fact these things were not talked about. And even if they were talked about, its not like the powers that be would take heed to them. Its, "here is the changes we're going to make. Deal with it."
Changes made without even a consensus call months before hand for serious debate among the blurt masses using the chain. Consensus is only restricted down to the witnesses which most of do not even know code as well, and hence must kneel to any changes made. They don't have much choice if they so wish to keep getting their witness rewards for writing blocks.
It's fine to have them around too, but unless they get their knowledge up to make or counter changes when the need arises, how can we call any hard coding changes fair?
Do vote @Blurt.Live as your Witness
Posted from https://blurt.live
This truly is a magical moment for Blurt! 🙏🍀🌞 So glad to be part of this! Thanks to the people putting in some really hard work here for the community! 🏆
Verry goods
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @techclub
Manually curated by
@samhenrytenplus
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @dsc-r2cornell. You can use the tag #R2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @ dsc-r2cornell. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
Hi, @blurtofficial,
Thank you for your contribution to the Blurt ecosystem.
Your post was picked for curation by @famigliacurione.
Please consider voting for our Upkeep Proposal by Symbionts.
some nice changes, but...
I don´t get it why the big accounts are still handled the same like the smaller ones, that was one of the most discussed points before the final date of the regent account.
This change should have more an decreasing effect on the witness votes from those big BP-Holders and this in special for the "founders accounts" because in this actual situation those ones are the ones who are able to dominate every other decission even when taking from more than 50% of the rest of us users ;)
So that´s still in your favor again dear founders and therefor not ok !
get this ,.
part of a code messing things up , just put a < in front of frame ( <frame ) and see what happens ,.. thought i point this out , as a bug .
Congratulations, your post has been curated by
Follow #gamestateconnect for more updates on gamestate.
you can also delegate to @gamestateconnect to support curation.
Great initiative
This is definitely nice. Hoping for greater things ahead.
Did this break comments?
Commnet test take 2.
Greetings,
Also, keep in touch with Blurtconnect-ng family on Telegram and Whatsapp