Greetings!
One unique aspect of the Blurt blockchain is its continuous evolution. Since its inception, numerous forks and improvements have been implemented to enhance the blockchain's functionality and user experience. Despite the challenges posed by BLURT's price in comparison to other well-known chains, the rate of improvements has been truly impressive. As a general rule, individuals who invest in a blockchain or hold a significant stake tend to be business-minded. Their vested interest lies in the success of the chain, as it directly impacts the value of their assets. While not everyone may comprehend the intricacies of the changes that occurred in the past, investors and witnesses are entrusted with the crucial role of disseminating knowledge and informing the community about these developments.
However, change is not always beneficial. A change that fails to add value to the blockchain is inherently detrimental. This underscores the importance of establishing a mechanism to achieve consensus on which changes should be implemented. The community, along with large stakeholders and witnesses, must act as guardians, filtering out unnecessary changes that only serve to divert essential resources that could be better invested elsewhere.
Although the consensus mechanism is fully transparent, it is however not democratic on all blockchains, at least in its traditional political definition. A blockchain is like a large company with constantly growing shareholders. Each shareholder can influence the decision-making process in the company based on how many shares he owns from it. While this feels gloomy and discouraging for small users and shareholders, this is not. Without consumers, a company's value would plummet. Therefore, it is in the shareholders' best interest to continually cater to their community, and implement changes that enhance the experience of users. Failure to do so could lead to substantial losses, emphasizing the vital symbiotic relationship between the shareholders and the community is the only thing that will make things improve.
We are here to continue this tradition of change, driven by extensive discussions within the community over several months. We have now reached a new plateau, one that we cannot surpass without a few additional modifications. Discussions were not always easy, and this is normal, given that everyone possesses different dreams, ideals, convictions, and beliefs. Achieving a unanimous consensus is not always simple, but we firmly believe that everyone comprehends the importance of evolving and adapting to new challenges.
Things to consider while reading the suggested changes
While numerous advanced technical solutions are definitely doable and are not unreachable, there are a few things to keep in mind.
- Finding developers well-versed in the intricate nuances of the graphene architecture, capable of making substantial modifications, is a rare commodity. The lure of more lucrative opportunities elsewhere often diverts these skilled professionals. Hence, it's crucial to factor in development costs when deliberating and greenlighting the community's desired changes in the near future
- The allocation of development resources should be influenced by cost considerations, especially when deciding which features to implement first. Profound changes demand extensive working hours. Thus, the community, with its collective wisdom, must find the right balance by prioritizing features that add value without necessitating an exorbitant amount of time to be completed.
- Due to its importance and need for data analysis, only one aspect of an economic change is considered per fork.
- Back testing does not really work for all changes where user behavior, both intentional and in practice, responds to the incentives offered by the rule set. Looking at past behavior under a different proposed rule set just produces misleading results if only relaying on hypothetical inputs. The only way to get meaningful results is to put it into practice and see how users respond to the changes. This underscores the importance of introducing incremental changes to the blockchain, as this approach allows for a nuanced understanding of user reactions. In addition to a more profound understanding of the results exposed by active data feedback.
- The execution of the HF/BIP is subject to dev procurement and availability.
- All proposed changes are up for discussion on this post and once refined, additional posts will be put up for discussion and voting on each hard fork (HF) before development is commissioned.
- The ranking of changes below is not definitive. Specific changes could be moved up or down or compressed together based on the feedback and suggestions from the community.
- The suggested changes only deal with the technical aspects of the Blurt blockchain. More efforts such as outreach and other onboarding initiatives also play a major role in improving Blurt.
List of proposed changes (BIP = Blurt Improvement Proposal)
Potential changes for HF09
BIP 0001
Changing the reward curve to follow a linear curve. Which means that the field will be levelled between bots and people who engage in manual curation, considering that front running will no longer be as lucrative as before. People will not see a huge difference in the rewards that they are getting, but everyone will have a say directly proportional to their stake.
BIP 0002
Removing the five-minute curation window, which will complement the new curation curve. People will no longer be penalized if they vote before five-minute or did not vote early.
BIP 0003
Removing the last twelve hours curation penalty because it is a system inherited from the chain we forked from that no longer plays any role on Blurt considering that there is no rewards regulation on Blurt.
BIP 0004
Fixing the proposal system that caused the vote weight to be maintained even after the proposal is removed or deleted.
Potential changes for HF10
BIP 0005
Divert all the inflation that was dedicated to fund the DAO before to witnesses instead. This means that witnesses will see a rise in their witness pay. Witnesses should use this chance to improve services and provide more infrastructure to the community.
BIP 0006
Ranking low as a witness was always an issue for community members who were willing to start a node to secure the network. This was due to the price of BLURT, in addition to the impossibility to cover the expenses of running a witness node or any additional infrastructure solely based on the witness pay. Fortunately, with the new diversion from the DAO, general witnesses pay will increase; which is going to make it more attractive for new nodes to enter the ecosystem. This BIP seeks to flatten the witness reward curve through minor witness rewards distribution changes. Overall, witnesses across all ranks will see a decent bump in their pay.
Potential changes for HF11
BIP 0007
Disable a witness automatically after missing x blocks in x day(s).
BIP 0008
Remove all witness votes from a witness after being disabled for x day(s).
BIP 0009
Deletion of disabled witnesses after being disabled for x day(s).
Potential changes for HF12
BIP 0010
Automatic removal of delegation after a period of 1 year. The goal is to avoid severe cases of abuse that are existing on other chains in situations where the original user is no longer active or deceased.
BIP 0011
Newly powered BLURT will have no effect on consensus decisions until the thirty-day cooldown period has passed. This is for security to prevent large amounts of stake entering the system with the intent of disrupting consensus.
Potential changes for HF13
BIP 0012
Instant blocks irreversibility. Currently, the last irreversible block can be as much as a minute behind the head block. This BIP allows for block settlement in milliseconds once enough witness delegated stake has signed the block. This results in faster in-app notifications, expedited finalization of commerce transactions and even some performance benefits for Nexus, reducing the need to reconcile block finality status.
BIP 0013
Allow users to broadcast three comments per block.
BIP 0014
Allow users to broadcast three votes per block.
Potential changes for HF14
BIP 0015
Burning the assets of exchanges that did not honor the BLURT airdrop.
BIP 0016
Burning assets of dormant accounts.
Potential changes for HF15
BIP 0017
Add beneficiaries to delegations.
BIP 0018
Changing the canonical signatures for transaction signing.
BIP 0019
Reduce the general inflation of the Blurt blockchain.
Potential changes for HF16
BIP 0020
Give the top x witnesses the ability to recovery account for users who did not set an account recovery.
BIP 0021
Moving x parameters to become witness parameters.
The role of the community
The Blurt community is highly encouraged to provide suggestions for future changes or discuss the current suggestions. We hope for a cordial and enjoyable interactions between members of the community because we are all here because we share a common goal, which is the betterment of Blurt.
If there is a general consensus on changes suggested for HF9, another post will be created after seven to fifteen days to allow a stake-based vote on the changes. The changes will be earmarked for active development if the outcome is positive, if not, the cycle will repeat itself until a consensus is reached. So do not hesitate to voice your concerns if you have any.
Thank you,
The Symbionts Team,
How long would an account have to be dormant before all their assets are burned? A year? 2 years?
How would one determine an account is an abandoned account? For example, I have a friend who is having trouble accessing and logging in. Not sure if it's a computer issue he is having or an issues with his keys yet.
I think this idea should be carefully thought out. Why would someone buy blurt on this platform if they can loose it all for not being active on the platform.
Hi, @squirrelbail,
Please refer to https://blurt.blog/@symbionts/s4eh48.
Thank you,
I see. Thank you. Please keep us updated as "dormant account" continues to be defined over time. Confusion and rumours over this can cause unnecessary arguing and upset. Accounts never claimed when Blurt came to be, that I can see. Dead weight on the platform and not real accounts but more like a ghost from what was before. That makes sense.
We might need to do an emergency HF for a single item, @chibuzorwisdom shared in witness Discord that Bittrex Global are shutting operations and hold approx 21 mil unclaimed Blurt, the keys could fall into the hands of engineers and extracted, leaked etc or, used to vote on hostile witnesses to break the chain, dumped on market, depending who gets hold of the keys. It could be none of that happens but you can bet once the withdrawal window is closed they will go wallet by wallet and empty what’s left. Please discuss this and share your sentiment on an emergency HF to burn the Bittrex funds.
As I mentioned in my last reply below in the thread, is a big concern and should be addressed promptly, I will support this special case for the HF.
it is better to be proactive. Don't wait for the official announcement and then see what happens. For this case I agree to at least have on the table a possible HF that is related to the possibility that this exchange may close, stop trading or become inactive.
Regards
Let's not give in to panic; on December 4th, only trading will be halted on Bittrex, and it will take several months before its definitive closure.
Given that the BURT airdrop to its customers was not honored, it's highly probable that the keys are still the same as those for HIVE and STEEM, which consequently have more to fear than we do.
Moreover, 21 million BLURT is not sufficient to take control of BLURT. I would estimate the risk to be between 100 and 125 million BLURT, thanks to your courage in modifying the way Blurt Witnesses are elected. I am truly grateful for this.
The same logic applies to any dumping: given the actual volume on the exchanges, it would probably only lead to a flash crash, with the winners being those who picked up BLURTs almost free of cost.
Considering the positive feedback received for the HF09 roadmap, I believe it could take place concurrently, perhaps even incorporating BIP 0015 into HF09, especially since I haven't seen any arguments against this BIP.
Nevertheless, if you still wish to proceed with an emergency hard fork specifically addressing the Bittrex situation, you have my preliminary approval.
I must admit, I was quite saddened to learn about the end of Bittrex, an exchange that faithfully accompanied me for over 6 years in my crypto hobby, encompassing mining, masternoding, and more.
I would only agree to such an emergency HF if the stake of Bittrex would kept safe in case of reclaims by Bittrax.
Could you expand a little on your thoughts on the subject? How do you view the BLURT wallets of exchanges that have not forwarded the airdrop to their customers? Normal wallets like any other Blurtian, as an extension of the exchange on the blockchain, something else?
Thanks for your advice!
As I have now read, this is the stake that came about through the Blurt airdrop and which Bittrex should actually have distributed to its Blurt customers.
If this is the case, I withdraw my objection.
It's crazy what is going on with Bittrex. These companies got sued into oblivion. If you feel it is is necessary to keep the unclaimed Blurt out of the hands of people who will just dump it in some liquidation of assets situation.
I support this, it needs to be done as soon as possible.
Some interesting ideas and really love these developments to happen in blurt. However I have some concerns about the following cases.
BIP 0003 - Removing the 12-hour curation penalty would be a positive point for farmers. Because anyone with a larger stake can farm blurt without noticing in the hot or trending posts if we remove this criteria. So please have a look at this again.
BIP 0009 - in some servers(Ex: Contabo), we may have to face a few days of server upgrades. So, in that case, witnesses can't do anything until the server providers are reestablishing the servers. In that case, I would suggest, the required days to delete disabled witnesses should be slightly higher.
Agree with you @randula the days should be enough, to fix any problem with a Witness Server, maybe 72 hours or more could be a good parameter?
I invite you to read my comment about the BIP 0009 as we don't talk about some hours or even 1 or 3 days. This subject has already been brought up on the Discord in the past, we're talking in months (I'm personally in favor of a 90-day minimum)
90 days would be a good option
Ok, maybe I am too conservative, perhaps 60 days could be a good time frame, but maybe with a pool we (witnessess) could decide in a better way.
I think that the delay will be discussed and amended during the preparation of HF11. My 90 days is mainly to take into account those who want to go on vacation without worrying about their witness node (60 days is also an understandable delay), but we anticipate a little too much in advance I think hahaha.
Hi, @randula,
You can refer to https://blurt.blog/@symbionts/s4g44u and https://blurt.blog/@symbionts/s4g0eg for BIP 0003.
Thank you for your suggestions,
Sure. Checking on that
This list of HF suggestions are awesome!, many are really needed other could be improved a little bit more.
Checking them right now.
UPDATE, this BIP 0015 catch my eye, more than ever, because bittrex exchange is shutting down!!!, and what will happend with their blurts?
This summary of the BLURT forks is beautiful
I do find these ideas very good like the forfeiture of ignored or "unhonored" BLURT token airdrops and burning them, the linear reward and even Blurt power reaching 500%. As we can see now we are already attracting investor(s). 👆👇
I find this very interesting :-)
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.
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.
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.
I express my gratitude to everyone who is working towards the development of blurt. I do not have much reasons to disagree with any of the HF proposals as top manager of @blurtconnect-ng witness account. Therefore I agree with all the proposals for now though I have a few recommendations regarding dormant account token burning.
I suggest that blurt core should send an email to the dormant exchanges informing them to consider listing blurt within xxx days or have their inherited tokens burnt in xxx days following the demand of her community members.
Blurt is more than three years old, every active account owner from the forked blockchain should know of its existence by now. Therefore, not being active and having millions of tokens stocked is a choice I consider unhealthy for blurt growth.
For the benefit of doubt, I also suggest that we send 0.001 blurt to all blurt accounts with memo of the proposed burning coming up in xxx days with a condition that
dormant accounts whose owners are still alive or active on other blockchain should come claim their tokens within xxx days by making transfers,post or comments to show their activeness and interest in the platform. Thus, any account that doesn't meet this criteria will have their tokens burnt for dormancy.I strongly advise against not burning dormant tokens as the owners can come to dump their coins when blurt price have soared following our united development efforts, thereby making the effort of the community in increasing blurt price a waste of time and energy.
I don't completely agree with this opinion. There were still users on hive and steam who thought that Blurt was an interface of one of these second-layer token blockchains.
Unfortunately, we still have very poor marketing.
I agree with this 100%
This is when blurt was created three years ago.....
I remember receiving this coin on all my steemit accounts from @blurtofficial account on steemit with the said memo.
So I think old steemit users who are the interest of our discussions are fully aware of blurt existence as a fork from steem.
I still think that their non existence on blurt is a matter of interest which can be clarified by giving them due notifications to claim their airdrop before we initiate any burning for dormancy.
I am open to further clarifications if you think I am making a wrong assertion.
yes, but I'm thinking about another type of user. we also have many accounts of people who gave up steem and moved to hive and they no longer use steem but they are not doing well on hive, and there are also people who also gave up hive min due to downvotes.
However, there is a good chance that if they were interested in this product in the past but did not like on hive or steem an aspect that, for example, we do not have (like a downvotes), they are still our target group in advertising. Some of these people are sometimes unaware that blurt is not another frontend for steem or hive, but a separate network.
there is also a good chance that if the price and market situation for blurt strengthens, some users who are now undecided because, for example, they are worried about losing their income from hive (because on hive some people who post here and here are harassed by downvotes or some people stop posting support) will move to us and one of the deciding factors may be the fact that their old account still has some funds.
I had never heard of blurt and had no idea it existed at all till @offgridlife sent me the link when I was frustrated with hive.
What you said is 100% true because
I remember receiving complains from two of my favorite nigerian writers @princessbusayo and one other person, her username just skipped my memory.They both said they stopped receiving support on hive after their voters found out they were posting actively on blurt and so they left blurt for hive.
However, I believe it is a matter of which coin has more value and this also proves we have been having spies all along from our sister blockchain and this spies will always be ready to dump their airdropped tokens to force blurt price down.
So I believe people like this my friend and those who refused to claim their airdrop can come back to blurt if blurt price appreciates more than their expectations. I also believe that they'll be ready to start afresh because blurt has an enabling platform for all new users to grow rapidly. Their non existence at this time can be linked to the fact that they do not believe blurt has the capacity to grow extensively as it is doing now, so raising complains of not seeing their airdrops at that time will likely not happen and if it does, we will defend it as a united act for safety of the blockchain which they know they abandoned.
Therefore, I fear the harm from the dumping that will come from this dormant accounts (whose major interest is in the token that pays more, rather than the blockchain that has more friendly value) will make all of this our efforts empty and regrettable.
So, I still feel that the best thing to do is to give them benefits of doubt by notifying them properly before initiating any burning rather than not burning dormant tokens at all.
Totally agree with you on notice being given prior to any token burning if it were to go ahead.
OK, let's do HF9 first
I would leave it as it is
Hi, @mariuszkarowski,
Leaving it is pointless since it serves no purpose.
The 12-hour window was introduced to fight bots and farmers who only voted in the last few seconds to prevent people from detecting their operations and being subject to downvotes. Since rewards regulation do not exist on Blurt, then it would be pointless to have it. Removing it would allow users to vote freely for seven days. Communities who engage in manually curation can highly benefit from this since they will have 12 more hours to schedules their votes without having to pass contributions due to power availability.
With the new reward curve and removal of the 5-minute window, a farmer would be better off just upvoting his posts exactly after creating them.
What about farming in last 5 mins so post avoids been seen on trending/hot so the farmer is less likely to be spotted (not that there is much we can do anyway).
This would imply that a farmer cares about his reputation. If one starts to openly engage in farming to max his ROI, then nothing matters to him anymore. We even think that having them farm late is better, since we do not have to see them trending and pollute the landing page.
It is not ideal, but this something that we will have to live with since reward regulation is absent.
We actually remember a proposition that was suggested in the past that could help with farming a bit without reward regulation. Will make sure to present it when the time comes.
You are correct the benefits may not be worth the engineering to remove since the post would almost be expiring. One benefit of keeping it is that it deters farmers voting in the last minutes when their self-votes won’t be noticed as easily since the post would no longer appear on hot or trending after payout.
The benefit of removing it would be to improve UX, it is very difficult to explain to users on the UI about the mechanics of this as as a result most don’t show the voter that their vote is worth less in this time.
Impressive
I would ask you to expand on several points in more detail to better understand what potential benefits it may have and the detailed technical aspects of these points:
I have doubts about how this number of days will be determined? Was it a vote of the witnesses or was it simply set until the next HF?
this seems very risky. As is the whole issue of recovering accounts by witnesses. Let's assume that we have such a situation with the new Justin Sun, despite all the precautions taken to avoid it, and now such a guy takes the first few positions in the top. Basically, I understand that such a person can recover the keys to any blockchain account?
Could someone explain in detail what security measures apply to restoring accounts so that, for example, an unauthorized witness does not have access to third-party accounts because so far I have not had the need to go through such a procedure on our Blockchain or participate in it and to be honest, I don't know but if I see it here is the potential gap and the greatest threat to investors' funds and I believe that this issue is crucial to discuss. Because the recovery procedure obviously does not need hf or the consent of others.
when it comes to Exchange. I agree. but when it comes to users, I have mixed feelings about this. Certainly, to be safe, I would burn the airdrops of the largest accounts that clearly have large sums of several hundred thousand and have not bothered to do so yet because it sounds like more problems in the future.
They may want to use these funds when our blockchain suddenly becomes more attractive.
But I would set a lower threshold for such an airdrop, below which the funds will not be deleted or up to which they will be deleted. For average users who had 200-1000 Steam users who, for example, may decide to come back to us or transfer from Steam or hive and it would be a starting bonus for them. lets say 500 blurt max. Especialy because we have a transaction fees and some users just could have some resistance at the begining before starting came here. But of course this is just a loose idea.
In my opinion, those two requires serious elaboration on what it is about. And what will it give us?
And if they power up a good portion instead?
We don't know ehat they will do. And if they sell who cares? Someone has yo buy what they sell first and the buyer might just power it up. What people do with their waets and money is no one elses business.
Exchange is always concerned with its own good, and if we don't have a listing from them, why should they buy it?
Whales who have accounts with us are whales on Steem and hive. Those from hive don't like us much and those from Steem are neutral, but they will also be guided by their own interests.
What happens if they sell? At the moment, if the exchangers decided to do so, it would be a disaster because i remind you that fork was after situation with Justin sun where Exchanges voted on him with they stakes so they have a lot Blurt on their Accounts. The market is still shallow. The price would drop dramatically to such an extent that witnesses would turn off their nodes because it would not be profitable for them to run them. Right now, running a node is more of a hobby than a lucrative business, because at the rates a witness receives, after paying for the server and electricity, he may only have money left for a big pizza once a month and maybe some juice.
Is there a chance they will buy it? If you saw that you were having trouble cashing in on the airdrop, would you buy even more? And where were they before? If they wanted to invest in blurt, they would have done it already when it was cheaper.
Blurt must develop thanks to people who see potential in it, and not risk that one of the whales from foreign platforms or one of the exchanges will become sentimental about it, which is unlikely, and risk that it will not happen, compromising the security of the network.
Hi, @khrom,
Nothing is determined yet. Fortunately, we have a live working system that we can check. Serey, and Whalshares currently use a similar system where if a witness is missing x blocks per 24 hours, the witness will be automatically disabled. If the witness wants to be back again, he will need to broadcast. This is like a kill switch script that some witnesses use to disable their nodes when they start missing blocks to avoid missing many blocks.
Regarding the justin sun example, no. He will not be able to recover the keys unless people want to recovery their accounts. Meaning, he can not, for example, start the recovery from his side and steal the account. Because he will need the keys of the account he is recovering.
It is simple, if you set @bob to recover your account, then you need to use your previous keys to recover your account when @bob starts the account recovery process. If you do not have a recovery account, then you can go e.g to @symbionts and ask them to initiate an account recovery for you. It just that if a user did not set a recovery account, he can reach a top witness that he trusts to recover his account.
Regarding burning assets, we do agree, but the thing needs to be discussed further. The prospective that someday someone can just wake up and dump millions in the market and extract all the value that was built by the community for years is not appealing to us.
The canonical signature is not really that important, since it is a technical improvement that is not going to directly affect the economy of the chain or the community. But surely, more information will be shared when the time comes.
Like how witnesses can set the price of Blurt accounts, more parameters can be added to allow witnesses to control more aspects of the chains. Said parameters are not yet defined and are subject to discussion.
Thank you for your reply,
A witness can't just recover an account. Account recovery is a three step process, and two of those steps are done by the owner of the account to recover. The first step is the account holder needs to initiate an account recovery and send his new public owner key to the trustee (either the account set as the recovery account, or the #1 witness). Then the trustee needs to do his part. Then the account holder has to do the third step.
What is suggested here is just to give the ability to more witnesses to do the second step. Right now, if you don't have a recovery account, only the top witness can act as a substitute for your recovery account. We want to extend that to more witnesses, so that if, for whatever reason, the top witness is not reachable, another witness could act as the substitute recovery account.
The only scenario where account recovery can be used is if an account gets stolen and the one who stole the account changes the passwords. Account recovery allows the account owner to get his account back if it is done within 30 days of the passwords being changed by the account thief.
ok thanks for the explanation.
My doubts arose because a situation in which someone has lost all their keys is a situation in which they cannot confirm that person is the account holder, but I understand that recovering the account is only possible if the keys are stolen and I have old keys that were previously used.
I will also defer to technical witnesses on BIP 18, regarding 21, it’s too early to define those until we complete rolling out our entire feature set anyway.
Thanks for your input, I’ll let one of the more technical witnesses respond on 7 and 20.
In my opinion any variable there would be set as a HF param and not a witness param.
Regarding the recovery account, it is merely a recovery buddy that doesn’t see your keys but more like approves you to be able to reset your password, I have never been involved in a recovery process so can’t speak to the process.
Airdrop caps is also an interesting idea and may be a middleground when there are strong feelings in either direction.
Below are my positions as a top 20 witness, independent developer on Blurt, and travel blogger. I invite people who support my witness to also express their opinions in comments.
HF09:
HF10:
Since 2018, I have observed a lack of substantial engagement from the majority of witnesses on both the Steem and Hive blockchains in utilizing their rewards for the betterment of the network. Rather than actively contributing to the architecture through the establishment of full nodes or engaging in developmental efforts, witnesses seem to treat their rewards more as a straightforward mining incentive, akin to what one might find in any Proof-of-Work (POW) system where profit maximization takes precedence. In my view, redirecting funds toward witnesses holds limited value.
I don't claim to have a miracle solution, but I believe this issue is a crucial aspect of independent development, which, like any system, has its flaws (as evident in some approved proposals on Hive). In the event of DAO fund removal, I see more merit in reconsidering the blockchain's inflation rate as a viable alternative, ensuring that any adjustments align with the removal's equivalent impact.
Operating a witness node costs around twenty dollars if using a VPS or almost nothing if hosted at home on a repurposed PC with a reliable internet connection, yielding a monthly reward of 15,000 BLURT (equivalent to approximately $50 at the current exchange rate) for those in the top 20, and 3,000 BLURT per month for the 30th position (equivalent to approximately $10 at the current exchange rate). Thus, there is a noticeable disparity that needs to be addressed.
Therefore, if a modification to the witness reward takes place, I advocate that it should exclusively affect witnesses outside the top 20. In the event of a downward reevaluation of the reward for the top 20 witnesses (up to a maximum of one-third), to enhance the reward for witnesses outside the top 20, I also agree.
To connect with the preceding BIP, the operating cost of my witness server, the BeBlurt RPC, BeBlurt, and the Testnet is currently $120/month, using a minimal architecture. Also, please consider that BeBlurt utilizes the official Blurt system for image management; otherwise, the cost would easily double.
The distinction between basic witness activity, deeper investment in the Blurt architecture, or the role of a decentralized application developer is not easily comparable, especially considering that roles such as a developer and a system administrator are entirely different professions, and there is no requirement to have a witness server (or knowledge in system administration and networking) to develop a dApp for Blurt.
HF11:
I would also advocate for penalizing underperforming nodes through a penalty system, where missing a block would incur a cost for the witness. The amount of the reward the witness should have received could be deducted as a penalty, paid in fees by the witness through a transfer to @null.
HF12:
HF13:
HF14:
HF15:
HF16:
I would also like to see the re-establishment of a WebSocket system (as it still exist on Bitshares: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/wiki/Websocket-Subscriptions) to enable better synchronization between the layers of the blockchain.
Oh on the point of being penalised for missing blocks, I thought you don’t earn rewards on blocks missed? If so isn’t that penalty enough?
I’d be wary of penalties when witnesses already earn low, also in HF’s lots of blocks may be missed if things aren’t smooth, so really don’t suggest it.
This is primarily a concept and a reflection that requires careful study, as it may not be straightforward to implement and addresses the following situation. Yes, a witness missing a block doesn't receive a reward, but I don't believe it's sufficiently deterrent. The issue of missing a block or responding late involves microforks, collisions, block delays, all of which degrade the network's quality.
A system that evaluates witnesses while also considering their performance can foster healthy competition to maintain reliable operations.
Agreed a UI tool that shows detailed historcal performance would be usefull to add to voting lists, I don’t think we need any complicated blockchain enforcement, losing votes should be enough.
I don't think we are paying enough for chain security, currently top20 witnesses only earn $42 per month which barely covers just a cloud server, there is no room for security resillience at lower prices and does not cater for redundant geolocated backup servers. I am a strong believer that infra workers have a right to make fair profit running witness and full nodes on Blurt.
We are currently very far below market with many chains offering rewards of 20k to 200k per annum and greater for chain security. Higher pay breeds higher competition and more community projects to attract votes.
Currently the only incentive to run a Blurt witness is for hobbyst pleasure and that isn't enough in my opinion and looks like a poor chain to invest in, consider an investor whether they would be comfortable that they funds they are investing are only secured by witnesses earning less than $50 pm.
The problem isn't the number of BLURTs received by witnesses (in the case of the top 20, in the case of the outside top 20, I agree 100% that it's undervalued, a difference of a coeficient of 3 being far too strong with top 30), but the price of the BLURT itself. To see this, we need only compare HIVE and STEEM, where the number of tokens received depending on the position of the witness is already higher on BLURT (HIVE Witness Earnings Monthly Report - October 2023). I think we agree on this point.
My intention is not, of course, to penalize BLURT witnesses, of which I'm one, but to warn against handing out assets that are difficult to take back later and above all to pay attention to their distribution.
As it is on HIVE when you are under the top 25 or top 50 when ultra hobbyist LOL
clarification: for STEEM, it's a process of extrapolation, as access to up-to-date data is much less available and easier to access than HIVE, due to the total lack of development on this blockchain, which is surviving by some miracle 🤣
In the hope that this resurgence of activity, coupled with the definition of a roadmap for various hard forks, providing Blurt with a clear objective and purpose, will lead to an increase in external marketing and communication efforts. This would restore the deserved appeal to Blurt and positively impact its price.
I fully agree on this point. What @nalexadre notices also came to my mind while reading this post @megadrive. It's easy to give the 10% extra, but later it will be more difficult to remove this 10% from the witness. Perhaps, however, as @ctime advises, part of it should be allocated to reducing inflation by burning DAO tokens - in this way, 50% could always be more easily redirected both as funds for another purpose and as funds back to the DAO if the blockchain grows.
This is something to consider.
Yes I’m with you on those points, what are your thoughts on directing to BP stakeholders who earn only 2.2% for powering up?
We need to compete with Hive’s 20% APR passive income on HBD.
it's a hard question. on the one hand, a higher APR encourages people to hold funds and could encourage some people to make purchases on stock exchanges just to keep these funds with us, but on the other hand, the phenomenon, from the user's point of view, in HBD is the fact that it is a stable stock, i.e. I invest PLN 1,000 today $ and tomorrow I still withdraw $1000 (+/- 10%). This convinces many people to invest in such a coin because they are afraid of fluctuations in regular coins. In the case of Blurt, unfortunately we would have to compete heavily with some coins because various coins offer the same as hbd and even better conditions with a similar risk to the Blurt investment.
However, it seems to me that going in the direction of playing "savings account" is not the way to go. Most such coins eventually become shell coins.
We should rather move towards giving our metal the characteristics of investment metals. Especially since we now have a high inflation environment in the world, close to recession, and we have even come close to stagflation. Moreover, the history of BTC has been showing for years that this path works best for coins.
Hi, @khrom,
in the sense that you mean not to create new tokens for the dao pool?
I hear you on the fact that once given it is hard to take back, but we seem to both agree that witnesses that are lower ranked need more pay subsidy.
How about the idea of shifting some of the DAO inflows rather to BP Stakeholders as an incetive to powerup Blurt, we only have a 2.2% staking APR which is competitively low across most stake-based chains where double digits are even common.
I would add a condition that to earn the APR you need to vote for at least one witness to participate in chain security, non-voting stake is worthless to security and should not get APR rewards.
From the investor level, I do not agree with this idea. Anyone who has bought even 1 BLURT on the market should have proportionally same return on investment as millionaires.
Let's activate "vote staking", currently, accounts that have Blurt Power and do not vote, lose their curation rewards because vote value reaches 100% and stops. Let it go to 500% or even 1000%+. This solution should eliminate vote trading services, reduce spam and encourage everyone to Power Up
Like @megadrive, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. The goal is not to charge something extra to gain more, but we must recognize that involving people in governance has not been very successful. Without a counterpart or incentive, people find it challenging to engage in governance. That's why I think gamifying the process could be beneficial. However, if an investor doesn't want to participate in something free, there's not much we can do for them. This concern, I believe, applies more to small investors than large ones, as the latter are more attentive and responsive to governance and its involvement.
Similarly, I would be very interested if you could further elaborate on the "vote staking" theme. At first glance, I don't see a direct connection with spam reduction, or with trading services and its potential elimination. Regarding the latter, I currently only see the removal of the delegation system, which could have significantly detrimental collateral effects. Therefore, I am keenly interested in exploring alternative avenues for addressing these concerns.
Hi, can you clarify which idea you don’t agree with, there may have been a misunderstanding.
I am with you that every Blurt holder should earn the same rate regardless of how much they hold.
What I was saying is that currently anyone that has powered up (staked) BP is earning 2.2% APR which is currently lower than bank and treasury interest rates for a far riskier speculative investment, we could redirect 50% of DAO inflation to help increase this to be more competitive.
But I would like a stake-voting system where users only earn APR on their stake if they help secure the chain with at the very least one witness vote, stake that isn’t securing the chain should not earn staking rewards.
Could you elaborate on the higher vote power and how it would eliminate vote trading? I’m just thinking “bottled up” super votes could be used as an attack vector to boost content to the top of trending that otherwise shouldn’t have been there, it also reduces the need to purchase BP to propell content to higher visibility as you can purchase less and wait for VP to build up to 1000+ % and then supervote.
I don't know if this is what Mariusz meant, but Supervote has its +.
Less spam - if someone spams for votes anyway, instead of posting crap and random photos every day for money, they will only spam every week.
Greater opportunity to reward very good content. Everyone has probably come across an article on which they would be happy to allocate even the equivalent of 10 of their votes from the entire day, when most of the content is at a level that makes it a shame to vote at all.
Gems, on the other hand, come along so rarely and are passed on between people as good content for so long that the 7-day billing period for such articles is a sin, because if they were to earn money for views, they would earn money for a year or longer. The possibility of rewarding such content with a larger voice should also exist in some way.
Decrease in fake activity in favor of real activity.
And I think it doesn't end there.
Yep, this is a real concern, as many posts don't have a 7-day lifespan and can keep/gain interest over time. This is currently a handicap when compared with what the social web2 has to offer.
I agree regarding the 2.2% staking APR, and I really appreciate the idea of gamification/investment in governance actions that unlock benefits for those who actively participate with their voice in the life of the blockchain 👍
i agree with gamification idea. People like to be rewarded and appreciated for their contribution. It just works - endorphins and the reward center.
Hi, @nalexadre,
The discussion about the introduction of a system to fund development on Steem (DAO) was actually preceded by a considerable cut in witness pay on Steem, around 80% less. The idea presented was that witnesses will no longer be obliged to use their witness pay to fund blockchain development, or any other development oriented toward providing services for the community. The DAO was intended to be used instead to fund all development related things, in addition to other initiatives. Naturally, due to the competitive nature of witness ranking, witness made sure despite the introduction of DAO to provide infrastructure, services, and engage with the community as a way to differentiate themselves and attract more witness votes.
The Blurt DAO, if DIP passes, will not be scraped, the code will stay, but the inflation will be diverted. Future changes to the witness parameters will hopefully make it easier for witnesses to rearrange funding without having to organize a fork each time a change is needed.
Regarding the reward curve for witnesses. The ranking in itself should serve a role which is significant, but is not necessarily the case right now on Blurt. One thing that we lack on Blurt is competitiveness among witnesses. The design theory is that in their aim to rank higher, witnesses will multiply their efforts in various ways to attract votes from stakeholders. Once they reach the top 20 or a favorable position, they will have a considerable incentive to stay there. So it is a system that makes sure that top witnesses are always aware that they could lose the premium pay at any moment if they do not do a proper job. When tweaking the reward curve for witnesses, we need to ensure that the new curve is not going to minimize the difference to a point where making an effort to advance becomes useless or less rewarding. If you pay the top 100 the same pay then no one will innovate because it is pointless, if you pay the top 20 50% of the reward share, then the 80 will provide a lot just to get there. On Blurt right now, we are in an entrancement situation where efforts made are not necessarily an influential factor. We hope that this will change once more faces join the blockchain.
Diverting the DAO does not seem like a good permanent solution, but we are reaching a point where stakeholders are willing to bet on this change. Maybe the community will learn through change and finally understand why the DAO was introduced in the first place. It can be time-consuming, but it is the most transparent way to go with it.
Thank you for the comprehensive response,
Before DAO 👉 https://steem.com/steem-whitepaper.pdf
– 75% go to the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators.
– 15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of Steem Power.
– the remaining 10% pays for the witnesses.
HF21 (DAO) 👉 https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/hf21-sps-and-eip-explained
– 65% go to the reward pool, which is split between authors and curators.
– 15% of the new tokens are awarded to holders of Steem Power.
– 10% of the new tokens are awarded to the Steem Proposal System.
– the remaining 10% pays for the witnesses.
Let's be precise, not political ;) Unless of course the 10% has since been returned to the reward pool to be taken from the witnesses only, which would surprise me.
I get the idea, but I don't think it will work, because it never did before the DAO. This is just my point of view.
Thanks for the precision
Hence my condition of a maximum 1/3 change in the reward of the top 20, keeping of course a cap between the top 20 and the rest of the ranking, something I may not have specified in my comment and which misled you.
Thank you for your response and for your time in setting up, negotiating and implementing the roadmap for the various hardforks.
Hi, @nalexadre,
Just a small precision. Before HF 16. Steem had a massive inflation of 100%, which was later reduced to 9.5% in 2017. Hence, the huge percentage cut.
Overall, one thing we usually state is that most of the issues and discussion that happened on Blurt lately have already happened before on Steem, we are often in a déjà vu situation. Some changes suggestions above, for example, have been suggested by Dan Larimer himself 7 years ago:
But more often than everyone would like to admit, when discussion becomes political, which we personally do not like, the price to pay is high, and the risk of falling behind other technologies and chains becomes higher. We really hope that from now on, the community will focus more on what really matters. Because the way which Blurt can be improved are plenty. There is already a massive bank of ideas from the past 7 years that we can all learn from and use.
Thank you,
Thanks for the clarification
I agree, I think Blurt has also the potential to test new possibilities not envisaged on the others, removing the deja vu and allowing it to have its own direction. The witness voting system (by PB distribution) is I think a good example.
As a semi large stake holder myself, through various dormant accounts I made and funded independently from this one, I have some concerns about:
And among others. I will make an independent post regarding most of these changes.
Why i have many accounts is a simple answer that seems to still boggle some lame brains, is to highten the security of my assets, if so ever the price increases in the future. Will my blurt be safe after this?(if it passes).
Also, in the same note, by what ethical and good moral right is it, that one can fund an account/wallet if it to be considered dormant and then lose those funds? Catching my drift?
Hi, @yayogerardo,
In addition to accounts owned by exchanges, dormant accounts will have specific criteria. Although not fully defined, one of them could be accounts that did not do at least 1 transaction since the creation of the Blurt blockchain. Some of these accounts hold millions of BLURT that could suddenly be dumped upon a favorable market environment and erase years of efforts while not partaking in any efforts to build such a value. This BIP is, of course, not set in stone and is up for discussion.
Please consider leaving a link to your post here to give other people a chance to read it as well.
Thank you for passing by,
https://blurtlatam.intinte.org/blurt/@yayogerardo/esygm-blurt-s-soon-to-come-hard-fork-hf
Re🤬eD
🥓
Looks like some good ideas, and some really dangerous ones as well. Several of these would completely destroy any chance Blurt has of gaining a user base, and/or degrade the experience for everyone currently on the platform. Our success or failure will depend on which of these measures get adopted and which don't.
Hi, @drutter,
Discussion and communication is essential, and the decision-making process is not arbitrary because it is stake-based. Meaning that no change will be pushed unless there is a certain level of guarantee that the changes are not going to harm Blurt and its core values. Such a guarantee is based on the opinions of stakeholders, experts, and developers who are active on the chain. Furthermore, bear in mind that the suggested changes are not definite. It is actually thanks to feedback such as yours that we can morph them to something better or completely erase them from the drawing board.
We would really appreciate it if you could precisely mention the BIP identifiers of the changes that you believe would destroy Blurt and degrade the user experience. Furthermore, feel free to provide a small analysis on why you reached such a conclusion. We will make sure to reflect your concerns to a wider audience to ensure full transparency and that your opinion is heard.
Thank you for your prompt reply,
Thank you to the Symbionts team for working with the Blurt Core team to conceptualise and refine Blurt’s technical improvement roadmap. We now invite witnesses, stakeholders and the community to discuss openly any of these proposed changes.
Note that HF 09 and 10 will be the first we will attempt to procure engineering resources to complete. We will only do so if there is a clear meeting of the minds and majority sentiment to proceed, in this spirit I invite @ctime, @mariuszkarowski, @khrom @fervi @double-u @tekraze @worldtravelpro and others to set aside past differences and come together to discuss changes which we all as a collective can mutually agree on for the benefit of the Blurt community.
I kindly request only for cordial and professional discourse in this discussion thread.
I support HF9, HF10. I have only one suggestion:
redirect max 50% of DAO funds to witnesses, the rest redirect to @null
If the price of BLURT will fall then we can easily add another 50% to witnesses pool
https://blurtlatam.intinte.org/steem/@justyy/what-is-the-shutdown-price-for-steem ($0.003)
Hi, @ctime,
Considering that there are other things to factor in other than the cost of running a node alone, forcing witnesses to operate their nodes at a near deficit (the shutdown price) could have a disastrous effect on the blockchain. No change is needed to see the witness pay, most probably, fall at some significant rate over time due to inflation, and almost certainly above any likely natural growth rate in network value as we have already seen so far. If we completely remove the incentive for people to run nodes and engage in development, then no one will be left to support the chain.
A better alternative could be to either directly lower the inflation of the Blurt blockchain gradually by tweaking the narrowing window. Or use the potential changes that come with BIP 0021 to allow the witness pay to become a witness parameter or a stake-based decision. With this approach, the decision of how much witnesses should be paid would be based on the collective stake that is naturally reflected on witnesses who are being voted by the community. But for this to happen, it needs to pass the consensus threshold.
We may note that Blurt stated with a big circulating supply, but the inflation was reset and did not continue from where Steem was at the time. This caused a rapid increase in the amount of BLURT in circulation. Tweaking the inflation and dealing with dormant exchanges will alone considerably lower the amount of BLURT in circulation and BLURT that will be printed. These things alone will directly affect and lower the witness pay due to a lower inflation and a lower supply. Dealing with dormant exchange accounts should be prioritized over reducing the inflation to make sure that the fall in rewards is not going to cut too deep in the witness pay and rewards for the community. Then the inflation could be tweaked while considering several aspects of the Blurt blockchain. This, of course, should be discussed further in the near future.
Thank you for sharing your ideas with us,
Thank you for your kind suggestion, I have no issue with that and do believe it is quite sensible to make changes incrementally, from a development perspective I don’t think there is a flow for sending to null by simply changing % flow to each basket, might just be easier to redirect half the DAO funds to witnesses and keep a burn proposal in place for the balance, in which case Blurt Core would put up a backup burn proposal to double ensure burn of rewards.
Please follow @symbionts for the next post in 7 or so days where the community will vote specically on HF 9.
I have another idea on how to ensure financial stability for witnesses. Every witness from top 20 will receive 25% upvote per day from blurtbooster. Witnesses can publish normal posts or automatic posts like @khrom does. The size of the upvote can be easily changed based on the market price of BLURT. In this way, we can burn a full 10% of BLURT printed for DAO, so my action of burning BLURT should affect BLURT price in a positive way.
I tried to reply you twice while testing the Blurt mobile app but received some errors, will just give you screenshots of what I was going to reply.
@megadrive, @ctime
Since Blurt's inflation rate was reset when he was created, we find ourselves with a rate that is far too high, but also much higher than Steem and Hive.
Currently, inflation declines at a rate of 0.01% every 250,000 blocks until it reaches 0.95% in approximately 20.5 years.
I'd be in favor of variable inflation, depending on the activity on the blockchain and framed by a floor and a ceiling to keep control of it, this would enable Blurt to remain attractive in periods of high activity and limit the negative effects in periods of low activity. A floor of 3% and a ceiling of 6% seem to me to be a good idea.
As explained in my last post, we produce 3,456,000 BLURT/month, 10% of which goes to the DAO, i.e. 345,600 BLURT/month, and the same for the witnesses, since they also account for 10% of the BLURT created. So taking 5% of the DAO and giving it to the witnesses amounts to increasing them by 50%. If the distribution between witnesses is not reviewed, then a witness in the top 20 who currently earns 15,000 BLURT/month would earn 22,500 BLURT/month.
Finally, I'd like to remind you that I'm in favor of a return proposal, which has a positive image and the same results, rather than burning. What's more, it keeps opportunities open.
Interesting concept, however, I would leave it for the future. At the moment, let's do what we agreed to, hopefully these changes will be approved by witnesses
Switching to a variable rate based on blockchain activity requires development and probably further analysis to define the right floor and ceiling to put in place as well as the periodicity of rate adjustment and its proportion, so if the idea were to be approved I don't think it could be integrated before at least HF11 or even 12 (depending on the final schedule), so as not to delay the implementation of HF09 and 10.
I agree with this solution. Under one condition: 10% that is allocated for DAO will be completely blocked (maybe as you wrote some time ago - by return proposal). A calculation would be needed: how much will this 5% give to witnesses and what will be the increase in their earnings.
These days many people think it's best to hold btc and do nothing. It will be hard to find people who want to invest in small blockchains like Blurt, so we need to limit inflation and wait for better times. Personally, I think that after the series of hardforks you have planned, Blurt has a chance to become more attractive to investors, which is why I still buy some BLURT, but not that much as before
I agree with you too, we should be keeping inflation under control. Yes once DAO is fixed Blurt Core is happy to put a backup burn proposal alongside yours and ensure all DAO rewards are burned.
I think I have an idea how much witnesses will get, so they currently get 10% of inflation, adding another 5% would increase earnings by 50%, so if top 20 witnesses earn say 14k BP per month, they will be upgraded to 21k BP pm, which sadly is still only 63 bucks at current price.
I agree bitcoin and Eth will be the biggest winners this bull market, however since BLURT is mostly priced in btc it should also go up a bit.
Blurt can be the gateway to btc for new users because it is way easier and has better feedback loop and group learning opportunity than btc which you can’t really do much with other than trade.
I must thank you, I am enjoying this cordial discourse and idea refinement. I am very pleased we are of the same mind on the future of Blurt.
let's do it your way, it's safer than ctime proposal and we will still have DAO system that can be used in emergencies
Hi Mega,
thanks for the mention. There are no issues going, @ctime, @mariuszkarowski, @khrom @fervi can confirm that, as I made peace with all long back.
Happy to see some progress from the team side.
I always look forward to the growth of the Blurt Blockchain.
Thanks
In my opinion, you need to focus on development. I personally cannot help strongly, because I am not an expert in C++ etc. I would personally like to see you find a consensus and merge the projects (blurtlatam from blurt.blog).
For now, I'm thinking of creating projects from scratch, so that Blurt's team can focus on developing the existing ones, and I can focus on new ones.
Hi,
Unfortunately I am not a C++ dev and Blurtlatam project is already dead, for real. I don't think, they want to bring it back now.
I don't make any promises, but I will continue working only on my Amplifier Frontend currently running at https://blurt.one which is a private and independent frontend built from scratch.
So being alone, I will only work sometimes, mostly on holidays.
I hope you also bring good projects to Blurt and help the growth of Blurt.
Meanwhile, until the end of this year, I will take a break from any Blurt-related development as I have more important things to look over for now.
Thanks
Yep, I don't want to bring back Blurtlatam. I believe to create a Blurt's blog version but without any censorship and maybe in the future new interface.
Your continued attempts to steer and manage conversation are extremely unwelcome. You are not helping.
Excellent. Thanks for this update. I am very impressed. @symbionts @megadrive @saboin
100 % correct