RE: Why I'm In Favor Of Witness Vote Decay
That said, I've never asked you to do any work. I'm sorry you feel this way.
The comment about "work" was in reply to your request to provide a list which witnesses were for/against the change.
My post would have been a good opportunity for the witnesses to make their stance known.
Sure, but why should they spend the time to do this on your post if they have already done so? Should witnesses be expected to re-iterate their stances on issues every time a user writes a post about the topic?
I'm concerned vote decay or vote renewal isn't part of the next hardfork.
I could easily come up with a list of 50-100 changes that the platform "desperately" needs in order to succeed. This one is in there somewhere, but I would not put it in the top 10.
Do you have any idea how long would it take to be coded?
Probably only about a day or two of coding effort. Coding is only 5% of the battle though. There is a very long process (with lots of negotiation) in terms of getting a change merged into the official repository (by Steemit, Inc.) and included in a hardfork. I would estimate the probability of success in terms of someone being able to get this into production before SMTs launch at less than 1%.
Like I've said in the post, the integrity of who decide of what hardfork gets passed is at stake. The more we wait, the more it will be difficult to pass vote decay/renewal.
This goes back to your premise that witnesses will not vote for the change in the future because of a conflict of interest. I disagree with that premise.
I will add too, that the majority of large stakeholders who are currently voting for witnesses (@pumpkin, @clayop, @smooth, @blocktrades, etc.) are still actively participating in the witness voting process. Maybe there are some larger stakeholders that have truly checked out and are no longer using their active key (idk, I don't have data on everyone) but I doubt that getting this change in now going to have any significant impact on the current witness votes. In my view, it is mainly a protection against a future (hypothetical) problem where a large stakeholder looses their key, dies, or abandons the platform for some reason with their witness votes still in place.
I've never asked that.
I've never implied such things.
Thanks for letting me know your opinion.
Cool! I'll try to see if there are some stuff I could do to increase those chances.
It's a possibility. You can't deny it. I haven't said they won't. I said it's a possibility. It's a non-negligible one with high very repercussions.
We mostly agree. This change is mostly for protection but it surely isn't an overrated feature. What if Freedom lost his ability to vote? No matter how small the chances are of this to happem, this isn't negligible. This would be very bad. And there would be no way to know if they have lost their ability to vote.
If pumpkin (or another large stakeholder) hypothetically became inactive tomorrow I would predict that this change would become more of a priority, and would be more likely to pass.
I do agree that there is always a possibility of conflict of interest getting in the way, so in that sense there can be an argument to do it sooner rather than later, but my personal view is that that chance is quite low. The biggest thing standing in the way of the change (based on my understanding of the situation) is just the list of other things that need to get done.
Thanks for those inputs. I really appreciate these.