These suggestions were initially posted as a comment to the request for feedback post of @steemitblog in this comment.
1. Distribute Storage Among Users Following A Model Similar To Witnesses
Problem
At the current growth speed, the Steem blockchain size will become unmanageable. A complete snapshot is around 160 GB and it's growing fast. A more reliable solution for solving this problem is needed.
Proposal
Create a new role in the Steem governance: content host. This role will be similar in many ways with the witness role - it should carry stake in the game, it should receive votes and it should be part of a schedule for hosting blocks of blocks.
A content host will bid for hosting a specific block of blocks. We can predict quite accurately when a specific block will be produced, so this bid can be made days or weeks in advance. In order to minimize the risk of failure, blocks of blocks should be relatively small: minutes up to an hour, maximum. The scheduling could be made in a similar way with the witness scheduling.
Needless to say that the type of equipment and availability should meet specific standards and content hosts should prove this in their bids.
Rationale
- it will keep the stake in the network (as opposed to using external systems like IPFS, Sia, Storj or Burst)
- it will engage many people in a healthy competition for providing and maintaining resources for the Steem blockchain
- it will be transparent (just like the witnesses history is transparent)
2. Optional Pay Per Post Operations
Problem
Spam is a very difficult problem to tackle. As long as our only way to fight it is heuristic filtering, people will always find ways to circumvent these filters. Spam lowers the quality of the content, increases the size of the blockchain and discourages mass adoption.
Proposal
Introducing a new type of operation, optional, related to the posting mechanism. It will act in the same way like the payment options: 50/50, 100% SP or decline payment. An author could choose to accept comments only if they are paid (pay to comment). A website could choose to make a specific type of layout available only if the author pays a certain fee (either ads / banners, or different, "premium" layouts). A video creator may choose to accept comments to his post only from advertisers.
The operation should allow for various destinations:
- tipping the author (100% author)
- splitting it among all commenters (arbitrary beneficiaries on steroids)
- to a specific charity
- to a specific Steem fund (new account creations?)
Rationale
- it will add more economical value to Steem by creating an ecosystem in which the token is actively used for specific content related operations
- by keeping it optional, it will provide intelligence about the trends - how many people will use it, for what, what is the destination of the funds.
- it will significantly limit the number of meaningless comments, and prevent rewards-farming by comments
As always, looking forward to your criticism, comments or suggestions.
I'm a serial entrepreneur, blogger and ultrarunner. You can find me mainly on my blog at Dragos Roua where I write about productivity, business, relationships and running. Here on Steemit you may stay updated by following me @dragosroua.
https://steemit.com/~witnesses
If you're new to Steemit, you may find these articles relevant (that's also part of my witness activity to support new members of the platform):
The first is really a good proposal. It is a good solution in order to keep alive the steem blockchain.
Concerning the second...I'm not totally convinced about😥
Thanks! If it's optional we will see how many authors are using it, when, etc. Spam commenting is way, way too annoying these days. And I don't see flagging as an effective solution to it.
Agree
As far as I know- spam should be appropriately managed by 1. Flags and 2. bandwidth.
Bandwidth is pretty much infinite.
Limiting others with flags works directly against that ability to support positive content.
well seeing as SBD has turned into a steem currency of sorts, I'm all for some internal markets arising, hosting and some post controls sounds great, I was thinking along the same lines in HF15 I wanted people to have the choice how to distribute rewards on their posts, all for comments, the 75/25 50/50 ... up to them, .... buuuuut :D good ideas here need more discussion and development :)
Number 1 is the best the others are iffy. Dtube,dsound using steem 100% would be good.
I think the hdd mining is an excellent idea. Honestly, if done right this concept could be expanded so Steem competes with those other coins.
Not a fan of paying to do things on steemit, but if the the implementation is good I could see how this could help?
Maybe you pay to comment, but the author can have a mechanism to reward the comment by refunding the money back to the commenter?
it all depends on what the route money is taking. It can be implemented in many ways. I think that paying for something increases the perceived value of that something.
For sure, but the amount I comment, vs the ammount I'm rewarded I might end up owing steem money ><
It's optional. If it gets accepted and implemented, I would be very curious to see how many authors will use this.
Thanks for tackling a complex problem and presenting it in a way that even a non-techie, such as myself, can understand.
An interesting proposal.
Will this replace the function or some requirements of full nodes?
Not sure why full nodes aren't rewarded currently.
Would there need to be 20 nodes + backups like the witnesses?
Would the rewards draw from the 10% witness pool, or would it carve out a new portion of the pool?
Will this allow for improved content control- such as making particularly reprehensible content inaccessible?
I will see this as a separate activity, a different type of node. Requirements will be very different so probably will be talking about high redundancy environments like AWS
That's TBD, I would see many more content hosts than witnesses. Probably 100+
I would see a new reward pool designed, to include this as well. It's a new part of the business.
I don't think I understand the question, but this feature shouldn't allow censorship, on the contrary, it should increase the availability of content.
Do you think it's possible for full nodes to be rewarded- or at least incentivized in the near future? And do you think this restructuring would ease they resource and cost burden that just a few full nodes currently endure?
I also believe it would be beneficial to support a greater number of hosts, even with different capabilities.
This may allow people to choose a faster service with smaller storage limitations- and vice versa, as well as reducing barriers to entry by only supporting the highest cost services.
It makes sense to carve out a distinct portion solely for this purpose.
With no form of censorship or control- an unfortunate situation may arise where a party ends up hosting illegal content- to which they could potentially be held responsible.
There is something in the blockchain that prevents that - I don't remember exactly what it is, but when some content is considered illegal or a request to remove it for privacy reasons is received, that content can be removed, there is a transaction for that.
As for incentivizing full nodes, that would certainly be great. It's becoming almost impossible to keep up with the growth. SSD storage needed for a full node is nearing 200 GB, and we're only having less than 40k people hanging around.
It all depends on what Steemit INC considers relevant to implement at this moment. Alternatively, a group of devs could fork the codebase, start developing this and then submit a PR. Or just keep playing with the new codebase, by starting a new blockchain.
It's good to know that there is a mechanism in place to protect people from that.
Is a full fork the only way to sufficiently manage changes that aren't directly requested by steemit inc?
Great tips as always. Thanks @dragosroua
upvoted
Well sir reading this all look like interesting but how someone be take part in it. And if I do want to be a part , what should I do for that .
These are just proposals and are intended for discussion only.
Okkkk so sir even if it would happen , who are those who can be the part of it .
The first proposal "if happened" anyone can be part of it if he has a good PC.
No one, that's a main problem of steemit. We sit and wait.
things will get interesting with the second option how users will see that