Good evening @symbionts
Thank you very much for this elaboration, which is a lot of work!
HF09
BIP 0001 I agree with
BIP 0002 I agree with
BIP 0003 I agree with
BIP 0004 I agree with
BIP 0001 and BIP 0002 are changes that I repeatedly suggested at the beginning of BLURT.
BIP 0002 I thought that had been removed long ago. But apparently I was lied to.
My general opinion has always been that you should remove anything that complicates things.
HF10
BIP 0005 I agree with, however, I think, the supplementary proposal of @ctime is very good, according to which "redirect max 50% of DAO funds to witnesses, the rest redirect to @null and if the price of BLURT will fall then we can easily add another 50% to witnesses pool"
BIP 0006 I agree with
HF11
BIP 0007 I don't know. I don't know why this might make sense.
BIP 0008 I vehemently disagree.
BIP 0009 I disagree
BIP 0016 I vehemently disagree.
Kind regards
Thank you for responding to the HF proposals, I too agree with you that we should strive to simplify things.
I am concerned to see that you feel lied to about the 5 min curation window, I can’t remember the history at all but I don’t think anyone from the Core team would intentionally lie about it, my best guess would be a miscommunication between engineering and management or maybe the code was pushed but didn’t actually work. Maybe @saboin remembers context on this one.
Regarding the performance-based witnesses vote expiry, there are technical reasons for each of those to secure the chain from having dead consensus witnesses in a broken state, tentatively held in a high position due to inactive stake still voting for it, we saw this with the “etainclub” witness which was dead for months just outside the top20.
@symbionts, @nalexadre or @saboin might be able to elaborate more on the benefits of 7,8,9.
Regarding 16, I’m on similar page to you that it opens up a can of worms and very charged feelings from users who value immutability, the drama and divide simply may not be worth it. We kept this in as discussion point because there are people that are in favour of this.
I don't remember every discussing the removal of the 5 minute curation window. It's possible that it was discussed, but it was never implemented.
We did remove the dust threshold on votes in one of the early hard forks. Maybe that's what is being conflated. I'm not sure. The dust threshold was the removal of 50 k rshares from each vote. This was removed on Blurt, but is still in effect on both Steem and Hive.
That wasn't you.
It was a person who always sabotaged all my constructive suggestions.
It would be great to see you blogging again on Blurt. @double-u …. Your weekly Pub is missed. You were a big part of Blurt’s early success. Please come back and restart the Pub… I hope you can come back @double-u
Hi, @double-u,
Please do not hesitate to share your ideas with us. We are here to make sure that everything is considered and referenced for a future BIP if needed.
Hi @double-u,
HF11:
It's essentially a matter of the quality of the P2P network (and its security), which impacts the performance of the blockchain. In the event of a malfunctioning node over a certain period, it leads to microforks, collisions, and delays in block production, as has been observed on Steem and Hive. If we aim to achieve a block irreversibility within 1 minute, I presume we must have an impeccable P2P network to ensure the blockchain operates under optimal conditions.
This primarily involves shifting the responsibility of deactivated witnesses to the core code (for instance, on BeBlurt, the display of a deactivated witness is hidden and can be reactivated through a checkbox in the filter) with a special characteristic, as explained next. Given that BLURT has a different voting system (BP divided by the number of votes), this may seem logical as it frees up the voter's power only for their votes on active witnesses in the case of voters on both active and inactive witnesses.
When we refer to 'x days,' we're actually talking about a duration of several months. Furthermore, there's nothing preventing the witness from re-declaring themselves at a later point.
HF14
Unlike burning assets from exchanges that did not honor the BLURT airdrop, which involves BLURT that never reached their final destination, the user accounts on the exchange (hence my agreement of BIP 0015), burning assets from dormant accounts opens a Pandora's box that is challenging to close. This action could have disastrous consequences for Blurt's image and how potential investors perceive Blurt.
Here, we are directly reclaiming what was initially given to the airdrop's intended recipients. Even though I might feel disheartened when some of these accounts awaken in the event of a substantial increase in BLURT's value, and I find it unfair, I accept it as part of Blurt's initial oversight (I advocate for Claim systems, not automatic distribution) and not as any fault on the part of the account in question, which is simply taking advantage of the situation.
No kidding. Imagine having your assets burned away. No choice to sell kr even power up. Whether it is good or bad for the whole, it is not our call to make what amount is wallets that is rarely touched. Dormant, but for how long and who cares? It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Eliminate this BIP0016 is my vote.