You needed more than 30 days to run the testnet? If you thought it needed more testing, why didn't you activate your witness on the testnet?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You needed more than 30 days to run the testnet? If you thought it needed more testing, why didn't you activate your witness on the testnet?
The testnet went live for HF20 4 days ago. before that, it was running HF19
It also went live for HF20 on the 10th (
2018-09-10 22:00:00 UTC):https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/cbbec58a6b4a4e4dee142a5dd4227a03ce9c1989
Until the real hardfork, every time the testnet starts, it bootstraps on HF19. Then it reaches the time when the hardfork is set to activate. So it's happened twice. Once on the 10th and again on the 20th.
Good thing there's an obvious place to know when all these starts and stops happen and we don't have to stop building our own projects and shepherding users in communities and explaining whats going on during outages and such long enough to also watch an off chain location for git commits just in case they randomly happen now and then :D
But still even if we DID notice random things in off chain places, 14 days is not 30. Just saying, from your link above:
Update testnet HF time
testnet-09102018
@mvandeberg
mvandeberg committed 14 days ago
There was also the initial announcement:
https://steemit.com/hardfork20/@steemitdev/hardfork-20-testnet-details
Related github:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/3a0f9448bb1e59af7835e444c80ea094aab627c2
So that one activated HF20 on
2018-08-27 17:00:00 UTC. I remember there being two. I guess there were three. I probably got that mixed up because of the halt.If even you got mixed up.... ;)
As others have pointed out, it wasn't running for 30 days.
As the guy who is allegedly in charge of the testnet, why didn't you tell anyone that there were some major uncertainties and very low participation... i.e. - that this hard fork was not ready for deployment?
Also, as a STINC employee, why do you not address the exclusion of witnesses from the private channels where there is more accessibility to information, testing, and discussion?
You ask why I didn't activate my witness on the testnet?
At #60 on the witness list, I have neither the financial incentive/support to robustly test the code nor do I have the influence to make a difference on hard fork acceptance.
I have been intentionally excluded and ignored by the dev team that creates and proposes the hard forks to be considered, so I have little motivation to help them with testing.
I had no plans to upgrade to version 0.20 anyway, unless it was already accepted by the top witnesses, which I cannot control. I do not approve of the hard forks that STINC has been proposing since last year, for the many reasons that I have already publicly stated.
The fact of the matter is - your guys screwed up the code, the top-20 witnesses didn't bother to test the code, and you went forward with deployment anyway, despite knowing about the negative RC balance problem. And you can't deny the fact that faulty code and unaccountable yes-men as top witnesses (who have the blessings of STINC, both publicly and privately) is a continual point of abject failure within our system.
So, if you have nothing else to add except more snark and deflection from the very real fact that the company you work for is vastly incompetent, then save it for someone who may actually give two shits about your poorly-crafted, preemptive damage control efforts.
And it's pretty ironic that this response had to come two days late.
Don't ya think?
That doesn't matter on the testnet. You could have been the top testnet witness.
Doesn't matter. The announcement was public.
It appears you are saying that you also had no plans to test.
Apparently, everything is after the fact. Did you raise any of this when the testnet started?
Read those points again, but try comprehending the full sentences this time.
I had no desire to accept this hard fork, so why would I help test it for the people who constantly reject/ignore me and/or my input, at a cost to me that I cannot recoup via my position on the witness list? Do you ever consider context, or are you simply not capable of that? I mean...I made it pretty clear. I numbered the reasons and made them short and to the point.
And yes, I have raised concerns about hard fork proposals many times, including HF20, before and after the testnet began, as recently as the night before the HF20 update. But as usual, the STINC team ignored me and those concerns. Scroll up to the top comment...the very thread where you're commenting now.
But not as a post.
Yes, I make posts about hard forks as well.
https://steemit.com/witness/@ats-witness/steem-hardfork-20-thoughts-on-velocity
Anything else?
Yeah, according to that post from two months ago, you had your doubts about HF20. You had no evidence, just a sinking feeling.
Remember, folks. When ats-david gets the heebiejeebies, you'd better pay attention. He's like some kind of prophet. He doesn't need evidence. Just listen to him and everything will be great.
You asked if I posted about the hard fork. I did. I expressed my concerns. Since then, I have expressed them in other places. Those opinions have not changed...and my reservations/criticisms seem to have been well-placed yet again.
If this is the best you’ve got, in an attempt to deflect the fact that you and your colleagues failed once again, then that’s pretty fucking pathetic. Learn how to read a damn room. STINC is looking pretty bad right now. Again. And here you are making pointless arguments about where I’m talking about my reservations and criticisms.
Maybe if your boss allowed me into the secret Slack, we could have more direct communication. So your crying about me not posting in the right place looks quite petty. But that’s not surprising, seeing as how you and your team failed and you’re too scared and arrogant to admit it...even though everyone else had acknowledged it.
Now piss off.