RE: Steemit-Benachrichtigungen verstehen | Understanding Steemit Notifications
Thank you for reading my post and your comment. If my post has given you a little more insight, I'm glad.
Now, I understand that this base calculation and regulations were implemented by the external service "Hivemind"
Hivemind is what makes the notifications on Steemit possible in the first place. The blockchain itself does not offer any mechanisms or methods for this.
But Hivemind is not an external service. It is an intermediate layer provided by (some) Witnesses and Steemit themselves.
So I suppose that if Hivemind's policies could change, we could receive different number of notifications (maybe more or maybe less).
Yes, the rules and limitations could changed at any time. But as I have seen it, this has been done very rarely.
Or is it the case that these Hivemind service regulations do not correspond to a random decision, but depend on the nature of the Steem blockchain?
Of course, the data itself comes from the blockchain. You can only receive a mention if someone has written a post or comment with such a mention and it has been immortalised on the blockchain. Hivemind analyses the blocks of the blockchain independently and offers further query options such as the number of notifications etc.
Communities (like Project Hope) are a special example. They do not exist on the blockchain at all, but only via Hivemind and its bridge API. All operations that affect a community are only executed as custom_json operations. Hivemind then interprets these and Steemit takes them into account in the display.
I would like to invite you to learn about the SP delegation program
I am not a friend of delegation programmes. I'm more of the opinion that everyone should use their SP themselves to vote for other users. If someone delegates their SP, that SP will only be used to vote for them and other participants. Usually no one who has not delegated is voted. This is called a voting circle, sometimes a little bigger and sometimes a little smaller. This is not made any better by manual voting.
The posts I like, or the people who read my posts (like you, for example) and write to me, I couldn't reward anymore if my SP was somewhere else....
Or how do you see it?
Hi again, friend.
Oh, so this shows how important the existence of developers is. You have opened my eyes to another way to appreciate APIs.
These changes occur when hard-forks are put into effect.
You are quite right, respected friend.
Although we wouldn't expect any user to place all of his SP in the hands of third parties, perhaps only some fraction of it.
This way they could personally support those publications that generate some interest for them.
Our vision focuses on the fact that many users do not make a totally efficient use of their SP (perhaps due to a lack of time to carry out the manual curation). In these cases, a delegation to communities that use it responsibly would be a reasonable choice.
Thank you very much for taking part of your valuable time to interact with me in this comment thread. I really appreciate it a lot.
No, no hard fork is necessary for such changes, because the blockchain is not affected.
There are certainly sensible actions that justify delegation. Unfortunately, such a delegation service is often used to buy votes for own posts.
For me, there remains a dull aftertaste. For example, if I don't have time to vote personally, I also don't have time to write posts that can be voted by the delegation service...
Hellos appreciated @moecki.
it´s a real pleasure to have this valuable feedback from you.
Our proposal for delegators is not to assign upvotes to their posts.
We assign the upvotes to the members of our
community, who make posts related to Economics, crypto-finance, AI, and philosophy... among other topics.
Then, 100% of the curation rewards received by our community account are distributed weekly among our delegators.
That is our proposed system.
Hugs!