create account

Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4 by arhag

View this thread on: hive.blogpeakd.comecency.com
· @arhag · (edited)
$791.23
Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4
Steemit has [released](https://github.com/steemit/steem/releases/tag/v0.8.4) version v0.8.4. That release is identical to v0.8.3 (which does not have retroactive changes to curation rewards) except that it has some politically-neutral bug fixes. I think it is only fair for the version of the client with the retroactive curation reward changes (currently v0.8.2) to be upgraded to benefit from those bug fixes as well.

Steemit has not done so. But I am willing to make the small code changes necessary to release a version of steemd that maintains the retroactive curation reward changes of v0.8.2 but includes the latest bug fixes in v0.8.4. I call this version v0.8.104. The idea is that v0.8.**0**_04_ and v0.8.**1**_04_ are identical except that the first one with the **0** has the non-retroactive curation reward while the second one with the **1** has the retroactive curation reward.

Personally, I, as a witness, would rather stay on v0.8.4 (non-retroactive) unless it seems like the super-majority of witnesses are going to go with an alternative version just prior to the July 4th deadline. In that case, I will go with the will of the majority. However, I want to provide the v0.8.104 option so that there is a fair vote by the community. The retroactive option should not be hindered because of bugs that have already been fixed (even if the bugs aren't super critical or devastating to the network if they were to persist with v0.8.2 past the July 4th deadline). 

There is one little issue. @abit reminded me of the [license](https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/v0.8.4/LICENSE.md) for the Steem code, which states:
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> *...*
> 5\. The software is not used with any forks of the Steem blockchain that are not recognized by Steemit, Inc in writing.

There is debate whether the changes I propose with v0.8.104 would count as a violation of condition 5 or not. But I rather play it safe and get explicit permission from @ned that I can go ahead with my proposed modifications and tag a v0.5.104 release on my GitHub page.

If I get that explicit confirmation from @ned as a comment to this post, I will update this post to include a link to that v0.8.104 release.

---

Edit:
Okay, I got the [explicit approval](https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4#@ned/re-arhag-re-dantheman-re-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t171624515z) from @ned, so I pushed the code to my GitHub. You can find it here: https://github.com/arhag/steem/commits/v0.8.104

Any witnesses who want to continue voting for retroactive changes now have the option to upgrade from v0.8.2 to v0.8.104 (https://github.com/arhag/steem/commits/v0.8.104) to take advantage of the latest bug fixes without compromising retroactivity.

Keep in mind that v0.8.2, v0.8.3, v0.8.4, and v0.8.104 are all mutually incompatible. Anyone using a different version than the super majority after July 4th 00:00:00 UTC will go on a fork.
👍  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and 30 others
properties (23)
authorarhag
permlinkretroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"users":["abit","ned"],"links":["https://github.com/steemit/steem/releases/tag/v0.8.4"]}
created2016-07-02 04:49:24
last_update2016-07-02 17:54:45
depth0
children9
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value658.511 HBD
curator_payout_value132.717 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length3,085
author_reputation52,490,827,205,383
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id49,972
net_rshares97,662,263,180,597
author_curate_reward""
vote details (94)
@dantheman ·
$0.21
Due to time constraints they can simply vote with 082.
👍  
properties (23)
authordantheman
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t050437502z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 05:04:39
last_update2016-07-02 05:04:39
depth1
children3
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.106 HBD
curator_payout_value0.107 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length54
author_reputation240,292,002,602,347
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id49,984
net_rshares585,778,441,853
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@arhag ·
$0.04
They could. But if retroactive were to pass (which admittedly seems less and less likely as more witnesses upgrade to v0.8.4), it would be nice if we didn't need yet another hard fork to fix the witness voting bug.

And as you know, the change is very minimal. I already have it ready to push. Just need the go ahead from Steemit.
👍  ,
properties (23)
authorarhag
permlinkre-dantheman-re-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t051744796z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 05:17:45
last_update2016-07-02 05:17:45
depth2
children2
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.038 HBD
curator_payout_value0.005 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length330
author_reputation52,490,827,205,383
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id49,990
net_rshares137,782,880,912
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@liondani · (edited)
I have indications that a couple of witnesses are voting v0.8.2 but have updated to v0.8.4 because they feeled forced to do it since on the github repo it's sais for the v0.8.4: 
> "All witnesses must upgrade by July 4th."

and the same is not stated for the other versions like v0.8.2 (retroactive),
and nowhere is stated that the network would survive without the bug fix (because the bug fix is not so critical as admitted on slack channel)

So a summary:
Much witnesses updated (or will) to v0.8.4(non retroactive from genesis) because they feel now forced to do it, not because they really not prefer v0.8.2 (retroactive from genesis)

PS of course it is much better you give us the option for a release v0.8.104 (v0.8.2 +bug fix retroactive from genesis) I hope we have it soon enough so witnesses figure out what to do IN TIME) Thanks for your efforts!
properties (22)
authorliondani
permlinkre-arhag-re-dantheman-re-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t122300635z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 12:23:00
last_update2016-07-02 12:31:03
depth3
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length859
author_reputation95,095,146,236,111
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id50,196
net_rshares0
@ned ·
$0.22
Arhag Im OK with the release.
👍  ,
properties (23)
authorned
permlinkre-arhag-re-dantheman-re-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t171624515z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 17:16:24
last_update2016-07-02 17:16:24
depth3
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.122 HBD
curator_payout_value0.096 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length29
author_reputation94,449,026,656,258
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id50,385
net_rshares598,235,707,771
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@duole ·
i wish dev team have a simple version!
👍  
properties (23)
authorduole
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160720t060324814z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-20 06:03:09
last_update2016-07-20 06:03:09
depth1
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length38
author_reputation22,530,985
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id210,965
net_rshares110,418,852
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@grittenald ·
$0.21
You have my vote.
👍  
properties (23)
authorgrittenald
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t051215558z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 05:12:24
last_update2016-07-02 05:12:24
depth1
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.106 HBD
curator_payout_value0.107 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length17
author_reputation4,288,553,026,958
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id49,988
net_rshares585,778,441,853
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@liondani · (edited)
$0.21
>I think it is only fair for the version of the client with the retroactive curation reward changes (currently v0.8.2) to be upgraded to benefit from those bug fixes as well.
**Steemit has not done so.**

I guess I know why... (and I hope that's not the reason)
I asked ned yesterday on slack which version he is supporting...
I must admit his answer deeply disappointed me...
You can see why on this great analysis here https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/analysis-of-curation-reward-difference-between-v0-8-2-and-v0-8-3

https://i.imgsafe.org/7bb321b18d.png

And I get the opportunity here to ask @dan the same question:
which version are you supporting?  v0.8.2 or v0.8.3 ?
👍  
properties (23)
authorliondani
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t130738157z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"users":["dan"],"links":["https://steemit.com/steem/@arhag/analysis-of-curation-reward-difference-between-v0-8-2-and-v0-8-3"]}
created2016-07-02 13:07:39
last_update2016-07-02 13:36:45
depth1
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.213 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length673
author_reputation95,095,146,236,111
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id50,229
net_rshares585,831,537,760
author_curate_reward""
vote details (1)
@liondani · (edited)
$0.21
You can find the new release v0.8.104 (v0.8.2 retroactive + bugfix) here: https://github.com/arhag/steem/commits/v0.8.104

That was quick @arhag thanks very much for your efforts !!!
👍  ,
properties (23)
authorliondani
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t175611969z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"links":["https://github.com/arhag/steem/commits/v0.8.104"],"users":["arhag"]}
created2016-07-02 17:56:12
last_update2016-07-02 17:56:54
depth1
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.214 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length182
author_reputation95,095,146,236,111
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id50,421
net_rshares586,511,121,660
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)
@pharesim · (edited)
$4.42
Thank you @arhag!
I switched to this version, because I don't agree with the conclusions by steemit regarding the payout data.

I went through the list for everyone at < -1 SP, and identified 52 active accounts known to me as individual user. Those have a total of -2100 SP.
Then I compared the activity of the winners of 104 to the big stakeholders (pages of transactions on steemd.com). It's obvious that they didn't do a fraction of the curation work of them. The only reason they get that much is their incredibly high stake, which wasn't really hard to achieve. Even if small curators invested thousands of dollars and powered up, they see only neglegible returns because of the unproportional bias.

I will keep 004 in the background to switch over if the majority decides so, but only under heavy protest.
👍  ,
properties (23)
authorpharesim
permlinkre-arhag-retroactive-alternative-to-v0-8-4-20160702t233445385z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"]}
created2016-07-02 23:34:42
last_update2016-07-02 23:37:06
depth1
children0
last_payout2016-08-20 08:45:33
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value4.286 HBD
curator_payout_value0.132 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length812
author_reputation239,450,405,799,183
root_title"Retroactive alternative to v0.8.4"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id50,642
net_rshares5,702,628,723,118
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)