RE: Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction by pfunk

View this thread on: hive.blog | peakd.com | ecency.com

Viewing a response to: @steemitblog/steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction

steem · @pfunk · Jan 10 '17

$6.80

>We propose removing the restriction on editing of past posts. It is a user-interface responsibility to show revision history and enable restoration of unintentional changes made by compromised accounts.

This comes with the risk of vandalizing an account's entire history if the **low-security** posting authority or key is compromised. A popular service with posting key access getting compromised could do a fair amount of damage. It's true that currently the risk exists, but it only goes back for 30 days. Thinking long term, it's entirely likely that a service compromise could end up with vandalizing the entire posting history of many accounts going back years.  

For this reason, I'd like to suggest allowing edits going back to the beginning of an account's history BUT any edit made before 30 days would have to be made after an account "switch" is thrown with the active key. Such a switch could allow edits going back past 30 days (with posting auth), but could then be turned off at any time. Having an automatic expiration of say 24 hours on the switch may also be prudent, because many might leave it on.

👍 dantheman, arhag, liondani, aizensou, tuck-fheman, inertia, sauravrungta, kyriacos, voronoi, mynameisbrian, ausbitbank, taskmanager, pheonike, the-future, krystle, framelalife, remlaps, teamsteem, bitcoinparadise, lennstar, anotherjoe, ballinconscious, christoph3, crok, steemleak, ejhaasteem, d3nv3r, dolov, grandpere, andu, anduweb, tamersameeh, j3dy, lamech-m

`author`	pfunk
`permlink`	re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t174423300z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 17:44:27
`last_update`	2017-01-10 17:44:27
`depth`	1
`children`	10
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	5.914 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.889 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	1,121
`author_reputation`	221,632,045,904,452
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,213,700
`net_rshares`	30,676,570,461,021
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (34)

voter	rshares	pct
dantheman	21,806,341,216,597	83%
liondani	2,126,479,790,712	100%
arhag	4,358,406,899,185	50%
aizensou	751,052,478,446	100%
pheonike	41,239,895,358	40%
tuck-fheman	748,639,449,857	100%
teamsteem	9,741,549,050	1%
framelalife	15,689,692,273	100%
andu	818,673,713	1%
grandpere	1,911,759,445	0.8%
crok	5,842,069,987	100%
christoph3	6,410,426,220	100%
ausbitbank	56,889,568,608	100%
anduweb	669,609,561	1%
krystle	17,193,307,628	100%
inertia	213,744,422,243	100%
the-future	19,315,463,381	100%
mynameisbrian	71,898,926,256	100%
sauravrungta	123,940,786,018	100%
remlaps	12,197,295,237	100%
steemleak	5,351,143,497	100%
d3nv3r	2,975,915,143	100%
dolov	2,342,178,972	100%
kyriacos	98,658,593,807	100%
anotherjoe	7,313,575,710	1%
lamech-m	97,695,534	1%
bitcoinparadise	9,715,350,589	100%
ballinconscious	6,422,024,529	100%
ejhaasteem	5,143,353,109	100%
voronoi	85,904,927,658	100%
lennstar	7,842,986,033	100%
j3dy	156,321,146	100%
taskmanager	55,928,346,159	100%
tamersameeh	294,769,360	100%

@abit · Jan 10 '17

I tend to disagree. Technically this will add much complexity and then likely harm system scalability. As mentioned in OP, make it as simple as possible. When active key is required for posting-related stuff, risk of being compromised will increase.

👍 sneak, beanz

`author`	abit
`permlink`	re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t212638315z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 21:26:48
`last_update`	2017-01-10 21:26:48
`depth`	2
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	249
`author_reputation`	141,171,499,037,785
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,215,503
`net_rshares`	105,315,919,116
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
beanz	0 B		48,826,545,293	100%
sneak	0 B		56,489,373,823	100%

@pfunk · Jan 10 '17

The active key would be for a switch only. Not for making the edits themselves. On the web, the switch can be on a more secure page where there isn't any user-modifiable content.

properties (22)

`author`	pfunk
`permlink`	re-abit-re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t213808661z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 21:38:12
`last_update`	2017-01-10 21:38:12
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	178
`author_reputation`	221,632,045,904,452
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,215,586
`net_rshares`	0

@smooth · Jan 11 '17 (edited)

I think reverting recent edits can be done just as well with the posting key. The use case here is a compromised account that is then recovered by the owner (or possibly other use cases such as an author who just messed up editing the post and wants to "Undo"). After recovering the hacked account the posting key would have been changed, and then the reverts can be done using the new posting key.

👍 tibonova

`author`	smooth
`permlink`	re-abit-re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170111t003929400z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-11 00:39:30
`last_update`	2017-01-11 06:14:36
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	398
`author_reputation`	253,602,537,834,068
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,216,665
`net_rshares`	9,564,551,073
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
tibonova	0 B		9,564,551,073	100%

@beanz · Jan 10 '17

It would probably be simpler to just be required to use your active key to edit posts that have passed their payout.

👍 beanz, timcliff

`author`	beanz
`permlink`	re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t215704880z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 21:57:09
`last_update`	2017-01-10 21:57:09
`depth`	2
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	116
`author_reputation`	77,215,574,122,930
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,215,704
`net_rshares`	82,786,914,890
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
beanz	0 B		48,826,545,293	100%
timcliff	0 B		33,960,369,597	25%

@pfunk · Jan 10 '17

It would be simpler but the idea of a switch comes from the idea of segregating the active key from any place where user-editable content is located.

properties (22)

`author`	pfunk
`permlink`	re-beanz-re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t220534093z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 22:05:39
`last_update`	2017-01-10 22:05:39
`depth`	3
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	149
`author_reputation`	221,632,045,904,452
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,215,769
`net_rshares`	0

@creatr · Jan 10 '17

I'd like to echo and second this request, if I understand it rightly...

One of the highest perceived values to *me personally* of posting on Steemit is the promise / hope of **blockchain immutability.** I view the value of at least *some* of what I write to be durable and long-term, and I would like to think of Steemit as a place where I will be able to maintain a "legacy of thought" for anyone interested to continue to come and read into the future.

As I was reading this 0.17 change proposal, I had thought to suggest a "lockdown" switch allowing any author to permanently lock any particular post. Reading @pfunk's proposal here, I like it much better - assuming the security of my keys - because it behaves a lot like the current system (i.e. "automatic lock-down" after 30) while still allowing for intentional, key-access editing of earlier posts.

One of my uses for this "long-term" editability of a post is maintaining (on my own, using the current UI) of a [**Table of Contents**](https://goo.gl/UnnylV) that resides on the blockchain itself. My current workaround/hack has been to simply re-issue the TOC at 30 day intervals; with editability, I will be able to simply update the existing TOC.

properties (22)

`author`	creatr
`permlink`	re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t185152678z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"],"users":["pfunk"],"links":["https://goo.gl/UnnylV"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 18:51:51
`last_update`	2017-01-10 18:51:51
`depth`	2
`children`	3
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	1,210
`author_reputation`	136,602,458,647,580
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,214,308
`net_rshares`	0

@smooth · Jan 10 '17 (edited)

$0.31

To be clear the **blockchain immutability** is still there regardless of edits. When posts are edited, each old version remains on the blockchain. It is up to the UI to decide what if anything to show about that history, for example an option to revert recent edits.

👍 dantheman, timcliff, eroche, teamsteem, anotherjoe, grandpere, creatr, lamech-m, johnathanhenry

`author`	smooth
`permlink`	re-creatr-re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t201404000z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 20:14:06
`last_update`	2017-01-10 20:14:18
`depth`	3
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.236 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.078 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	266
`author_reputation`	253,602,537,834,068
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,214,921
`net_rshares`	5,270,737,466,112
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (9)

voter	rshares	pct
dantheman	5,192,009,063,207	20%
teamsteem	9,741,549,050	1%
grandpere	1,911,759,445	0.8%
timcliff	33,960,369,597	25%
anotherjoe	7,313,621,203	1%
lamech-m	97,695,534	1%
creatr	689,341,492	1%
eroche	24,961,434,988	100%
johnathanhenry	52,631,596	76%

@creatr · Jan 10 '17

$0.31

Thank you, @smooth, for clarifying that for me. I suspected as much.
So, checking my understanding:

- Everything ever "Posted" goes on the blockchain.
- Every subsequent *edit* goes on the blockchain.
- The entire history of a post is accessible to an appropriately crafted UI.
- The "final presented state" of a post depends on the UI interpreting the blockchain history.

Does that sound about right? Thanks for helping me understand. ;)

👍 dantheman, johnathanhenry

`author`	creatr
`permlink`	re-smooth-re-creatr-re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t204847641z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"],"users":["smooth"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 20:48:48
`last_update`	2017-01-10 20:48:48
`depth`	4
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.230 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.076 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	440
`author_reputation`	136,602,458,647,580
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,215,216
`net_rshares`	5,192,061,694,803
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (2)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
dantheman	0 B		5,192,009,063,207	20%
johnathanhenry	0 B		52,631,596	76%

1 reply

@ned · Jan 10 '17

Seems like a reasonable idea. Alternatively, a UI can allow a user to restore all of their old posts&comments.

👍 proskynneo, barrydutton, remlaps, bitcoinparadise, crok, ejhaasteem, the-ego-is-you, andu, anduweb, johnathanhenry

`author`	ned
`permlink`	re-pfunk-re-steemitblog-steem-0-17-change-proposal-introduction-20170110t180415143z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2017-01-10 18:04:15
`last_update`	2017-01-10 18:04:15
`depth`	2
`children`	0
`last_payout`	2017-02-10 22:33:00
`cashout_time`	1969-12-31 23:59:59
`total_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`curator_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`pending_payout_value`	0.000 HBD
`promoted`	0.000 HBD
`body_length`	110
`author_reputation`	94,449,026,656,258
`root_title`	"Steem 0.17 Change Proposal Introduction"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	2,213,867
`net_rshares`	227,880,396,406
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (10)

voter	rshares	pct
proskynneo	170,919,622,534	1%
andu	818,673,713	1%
crok	5,842,069,987	100%
anduweb	669,609,561	1%
remlaps	11,906,883,445	100%
barrydutton	19,077,908,461	100%
the-ego-is-you	3,753,749,685	100%
bitcoinparadise	9,521,043,577	100%
ejhaasteem	5,320,710,113	100%
johnathanhenry	50,125,330	76%