RE: Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives by timcliff

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

Viewing a response to: @noisy/re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161119t020321268z

steem · @timcliff · Nov 19 '16

Hi @noisy - the question is touched on in one of the comment threads above (including a reply from Dan). Multiple posting keys seems to be the direction it would head. I share exactly the same concerns as you do though!

properties (22)

`author`	timcliff
`permlink`	re-noisy-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161119t043227540z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"],"users":["noisy"]}
`created`	2016-11-19 04:32:27
`last_update`	2016-11-19 04:32:27
`depth`	2
`children`	2
`last_payout`	2016-12-19 18:20:15
`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`	219
`author_reputation`	272,954,445,077,789
`root_title`	"Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	1,800,050
`net_rshares`	0

@noisy · Nov 19 '16

I just figure out  that from user perspective, dealing with keys is already something difficult and new, and introducing even more keys could be really confusing.

I believe this could work, that user should be able create new "slaves" account and link them to original account (via steem connect or steemit). Then user would have a possibility of setting a rule for particular slave account (behind a scane of course additional keys would be used). Then blockchain after noticing any action from slave account should trigger proper action on main account, of course after checking whether permissions of particular slave account allows to take particular action.

This will allow keeping slave keys by each service individually (ideally not even by them, but by browser).

What do you think?

👍 timcliff

`author`	noisy
`permlink`	re-timcliff-re-noisy-re-steemitblog-proposed-upgrade-for-blockchain-incentives-20161119t122443054z
`category`	steem
`json_metadata`	{"tags":["steem"]}
`created`	2016-11-19 12:24:48
`last_update`	2016-11-19 12:24:48
`depth`	3
`children`	1
`last_payout`	2016-12-19 18:20:15
`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`	792
`author_reputation`	59,974,373,499,600
`root_title`	"Proposed Upgrade for Blockchain Incentives"
`beneficiaries`	`[]`
`max_accepted_payout`	1,000,000.000 HBD
`percent_hbd`	10,000
`post_id`	1,801,368
`net_rshares`	18,870,741,029
`author_curate_reward`	""

properties (23)vote details (1)

voter	weight	wgt%	rshares	pct	time
timcliff	0 B		18,870,741,029	20%

@timcliff · Nov 19 '16

It's a good suggestion. I agree 100% that whatever solution they implement, it is probably going to complicate things! I hope they can come up with a good solution that strikes the right balance.

properties (22)