The fees road to hell
I was replied to in a comment, of which for the sake of my life I can not seem to find it, that the fees were sent to socialgraph.
I spent a few hours searching to no avail. So I knocked on the witnesses door to get some directions and Saboin came to answer.
He also filled me in with the details.
Here is the raw data:
I am thinking the confusion laid was that this other user probably had it correct if it was before HF4. Maybe he didnt get the memo?
The @blurt.dao account was the one funded with fees in the past but not anymore, and furthermore it now funds the @socialgraph which is used to powerup and vote on these witnesses.
And provide vesting shares to a few other accounts.
Personally I think the socialgraph account should vote on the devs proof of work publications but I am sure there is a reason for that. I say this because I agree that the devs are underpaid. By a large sum. This was talked about recently by @clixmoney in Salaries of blockchain developers !
Honestly I was taken aback from the differences of what they get from blurt funds. It was @practicalthought who further dove into that topic and provided some clarification in the comments.
So maybe, i was thinking, a percentage of the fees total could go to funding the devs more. I think if they are well paid they will have more time to dedicate to blurt and move things along. Such as having more use cases for blurt. Tool development. Hire new devs. We'll see...
Anyways I hope that covers the road map where all blurt fees are allocated to and ending any misconceptions regarding the fees role here.
If you are ever in need of liquid to have functionality here, visit @powerclub for some liquid blurt. I think you'll get 10blurt which is more than enough to make one awesome post.
Transaction fees have slightly increased. Not all the witnesses agreed with jacobs request to raise them so they remain as a counterbalance against that.
Over pricing introductory posts
I want to bring up the issue again of voting on new intro posts.
The way these type of posts are being voted on currently may be with good intentions, but I find it more counterproductive apart from misleading new blurt members thinking that it is easy money to be here.
It's not.
It has been made a custom or a habit to over vote introductory posts high. This has been made a target for abusers who now take advantage of farming new accounts with fake introductory posts to reap free rewards.
@freakeo has mentioned this in his recent post here:
Blurt for sale, but who buys? | Blurt a la venta, pero quien lo compra?
He only shows you a small glimpse into this darker side of blurt where abusers manipulate users into voting for them u der the guise of "hey I'm new here, now vote for me so I can power it all down and fund all my other hundreds of accounts do it all over again"
The solution I find it to be very simple.
The solution I based it on the same principle of what one should do to prevent yourself from being robbed personally, which is to make it not worth the time and effort for so little gains.
Rather than invest time to help other users make exquisite first impressions (because to be honest, some of these posts are pretty well thought out despite being fake) most of the abusers are lazy and thus think this way is much easier.
I have stopped voting on any new intro posts and wait to see what they do after payout. 7 out of 10 times I do this I find what freakeao has been saying. They power down and transfer to their alternative accounts for withdrawal.
Raising fees or adding to coal is not going to slow down sufficiently this process from happening. We as a community are going to have to develope self restraint on voting these posts.
If the abuser sees how little they get for all the time they put in, they are not going to keep doing it because that part of the market would be dead. No one is buying into what they got to give, and what they give to blurt is zero value. They are mere parasites and should be dealt with. My opinion is that the best way is to minimize greatly the rewards for each new account coming in, atleast to see what they have to give.
Changes coming for HF6 Thursday, July 07, 2022
It will be the 6th hardfork if I am not mistaken. And here are some recap to what will happen this day.
The @blurt.regent account will be decommissioned. Meaning that it will no longer have influence on the chain and consensus witness vote power will be squashed. Thus as a result, every witness will have to rely on real votes from the community.
@socialgraph will no longer be recieving direct funding from the @blurt.dao account. Thus any proposals will have to be made through the proposals. Anyone can make proposals for funding their project and anyone can participate in voting for that or not. (How these votes decide if a project deserves to be funded or not and how much is unkown to me at this point. I'll investigate this further at a later time or day) @saboin confirmed this recently in comment to double-u's recent post
These are the two major changes coming forth that I am aware of thus far. I read plenty to find that this was it. I am sure other fixes will be made and I hope that gets clarified BEFOREHAND
Cheers
Previous post:
Blurt Meme Drop #3
Todays weekly and daily time frame blurt price chart from Ionomy.com at time of writing this post. Connors rsi indicator enabled.
///
Affiliate marketing.
bitcoincash:qq00rrrm5kflamsz6hryfgtnn4v3esutl5vl59q9pa
I have no clue where you dug that up. We're currently on HF 7 and working on HF 8 to possibly have it ready for the end of July, but there isn't currently any specific date.
The regent was due to expire on 2022/07/04. That was coded in from the beginning. And the DAO proposal from socialgraph will end on 2022/07/07, but that has nothing to do with any hardfork. That's just the date of expiry of the current proposal by socialgraph.
Socialgraph will probably put in a new proposal, but make it much smaller so that there are funds left for other accounts to put in proposals and get a chance to be funded.
This was all going to happen regardless. A few people have made a mountain out of a molehill. For what purpose? I'll let you make your own speculations.
Lol from github but i must have been looking at old files... so HF7it is then. And you said possibly on July, alright that is different than what I have been getting via word of mouth from many other users. Thank you for clarifying. But the ending date and the hf8 possible due date is at the same month.
What other radical changes are to happen with HF8? And what can we expect to happen soon as the HF8 is operational?
The three things that change for HF 8 (so far) are the following:
Deleverage witness voting:
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/119
Some changes to the proposal system:
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/121
The removal of witness/governance proxy:
https://gitlab.com/blurt/blurt/-/issues/175
We don't know when it will be ready and then we have to see if the witnesses accept it. We will have announcements when it gets closer to the date of completion.
You can look through the issues on GitLab to see what other things have been proposed in the past, but haven't made it yet. And you can look at the closed issues to see things that have either changed or been rejected in the past.
I think these account can be easily reactivated after their expirations?
The only one that is going inactive is @blurt.regent, see saboins comments.
And that is entirely possible. Maybe they will use it for something else?
"A few people have made a mountain out of a molehill. For what purpose? I'll let you make your own speculations" Is there a foundation or is there not? This is the problem "the few have" as not 1 of you gives a clear and concise answer, as the "blurt club" of tech people seem very confused, is there? Or is there not? Simple question.
No foundation in the legal sense. Meaning there is no registration. Its not required to start a blockchain. Just computers and a human to operate it. There is no "Corp" in operation here apart from voluntary funding from investors and voluntary work from devs who could get a better job if they wanted it. But they must really believe in what they are doing to stay this long. Its just people like you and me working as an organized group.
According to @offgridlife $175,000 is the going rate on here to run things, per year, I have no idea about that, possibly talk to him, hence why I added the @ before his name, I want to see you all do well, it would be nice if everyone got a slice of the pie, I can only hope, and have enough myself to see me to old age and death, so be it. Have a superb ride, you deserve it. In a nice way.
Lol I muted him along time ago for his spamming and I think he muted me before that since he mever responds to me.
Lol, he does post a lot.
In hive he would be muted for spamming the chain lol. Blurt is pretty laid back in comparison. Which is why I liked the mute function. Why send to coal when i van just either not follow, not vote and mute and be done. The earth continues to spin as the saying goes.
He shit posts alot. Thats what bugged me.
You are not the first to say that.
....is there a mute list? (link?)
Yes. Your own personal muted list can be found in settings.
I meant like the steemit muted list- users who have muted you...?
Gracias por mencionarme en tu publicación, como bien menciono ese es uno de los tantos ejemplos de porque los fees son buenos para el ecosistema, a pesar que esto pueda llevar a que el inicio sea un poco cuesta arriba para iniciar para los usuarios. Los fees quemados deberían poder potenciar el precio de la moneda, sin embargo, si hacemos un balance no tenemos suficientes usuarios como para que esta quema represente un volumen aceptable, debemos recordar que siempre estamos luchando por la incorporación de nuevos miembros y hacer una base más sólida para la economía. La economía de la plataforma viene potenciada por el uso de comentarios, publicaciones, votos y fees. Adicional a eso los fees están creados no bajo el concepto de Blurt sino de la tecnología Blokchain, siempre han existido en multiples cadenas y uno de sus principios básicos es la protección de las transacciones realizadas en los bloques generados, si alguien intenta robar fondos con pequeñas transacciones, el aumento de los fees hace inviable estos ataques. Un caso particular fue el ataque de diciembre, usaron una función que no poseía fees logrando inyectar grandes volúmenes de transacciones en los bloques de la cadena, aunque sueno muy poco lógico de haber contenido fees la transacción el atacante hubiese tenido que invertir miles de Blurt para poder inyectar estas transacciones. Así podemos analizar muchos pro y contras. Pero esta demostrado que cuando una Blockchain, juego nft y otros logran establecer una base sólida y obtienen bueno casos de usos, mucha rentabilidad; los usuarios están dispuestos a pagar por esos fees.
Thanks for mentioning me in your post, as I mentioned, this is one of the many examples of why fees are good for the ecosystem, even though this can make the start a little uphill for users. The fees burned should be able to boost the price of the coin, however, if we make a balance we do not have enough users for this burn to represent an acceptable volume, we must remember that we are always fighting for the incorporation of new members and make a more solid base for the economy. The economy of the platform is boosted by the use of comments, publications, votes and fees. In addition to that, the fees are created not under the concept of Blurt but of Blokchain technology, they have always existed in multiple chains and one of its basic principles is the protection of the transactions made in the generated blocks, if someone tries to steal funds with small transactions, the increase of the fees makes these attacks unfeasible. A particular case was the December attack, they used a function that did not have fees and managed to inject large volumes of transactions in the blocks of the chain, although it sounds very illogical if the attacker would have had to invest thousands of Blurt to be able to inject these transactions. So we can analyze many pros and cons. But it is proven that when a Blockchain, nft game and others manage to establish a solid base and get good use cases, a lot of profitability; users are willing to pay for those fees.
Congratulations, your blog has been manually curated by @chinonso01 for @blurttradinghub community.
Keep posting your quality content on blurt.blog.
Follow @blurttradinghub to learn about cryptocurrency trading.
The lazy few will charge more every day until their belly is full, blockchain imitates life. Keep raising the price to post, till nobody wants to post anymore.
I still think it is at a fair level in reducing spam. It works well with that. But I get your point.
It would definitely increase a bit the enthusiastic to try harder on their publications. With a slight increase. We may even see a reduction in lazy shit posting level of plgm posts. But too high and it would disuade any user.
Some people on here post so many posts per day, I think they have got nothing better to do, it amazes me they have so much time to shit post all day, but hey, it just makes blurt worthless, I tried to get the price up, got it up, now I cannot be bothered anymore. Sorry buddy, but leaving you all to it, got stuff to do, hope it all works out well for you.