Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comment Reward Beneficiaries #773

Closed
mvandeberg opened this issue Jan 10, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Comment Reward Beneficiaries #773

mvandeberg opened this issue Jan 10, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor

As a comment option, authors should be able to specify a number of beneficiaries to receive a percentage of the rewards and the percent of the potential liquid rewards to receive as Steem Power. Unallocated rewards by default go to the author as they currently do.

@mastercyb
Copy link

Should work for comments also. Especially if #774 will be implemented. Comments to the same post can be published from different apps. Developers should be rewarded for all efforts.

@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes. All content will be eligible for this.

@noisy
Copy link

noisy commented Jan 13, 2017

this will bring so many new possibilities. ❤️

@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

mvandeberg commented Jan 13, 2017

The comment_options_operation extension field can contain a vector of pairs of account names and weights to specify the comment beneficiaries.

struct comment_payout_beneficiaries
{
   vector< std::pair< account_name_type, uint16_t > > beneficiaries;

   void validate();
};

Beneficiaries can be set when there are no votes on a comment. Setting options of any kind should be done in the same transaction that the comment is created in.

Processing of the beneficiaries during payout will go in order of the vector and whatever is left goes to the author. The sum of weights cannot exceed STEEMIT_100_PERCENT (10000).

@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Testing is waiting on #659 to be merged.

mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged

bitphage added a commit to bitphage/golos that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2018
From GolosChain#102
As a comment option, authors should be able to specify a number of
beneficiaries to receive a percentage of the rewards and the percent of
the potential liquid rewards to receive as Steem Power. Unallocated
rewards by default go to the author as they currently do.

Inspired by steemit#773 and supported by the community.

----
This commit is a cumulative patch taken from upstream commits:
git diff 91f5113..upstream/102-comment-reward-beneficiaries

Unrelated changes has been omitted.
Unittests in original commits was broken, but was fixed in next commits.
I used these fixes.
afalaleev added a commit to GolosChain/golos that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2018
As a comment option, authors should be able to specify a number of
beneficiaries to receive a percentage of the rewards and the percent of
the potential liquid rewards to receive as Steem Power. Unallocated
rewards by default go to the author as they currently do.

Inspired by steemit#773 and supported by the community.

Commit contains fix miscalculation when paying beneficiaries steemit#909 .

As described in steemit#2162, 8 beneficiniries is small,
that is why limit is 64.
afalaleev added a commit to GolosChain/golos that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2018
As a comment option, authors should be able to specify a number of
beneficiaries to receive a percentage of the rewards and the percent of
the potential liquid rewards to receive as Steem Power. Unallocated
rewards by default go to the author as they currently do.

Inspired by steemit#773 and supported by the community.

Commit contains fix miscalculation when paying beneficiaries steemit#909 .

As described in steemit#2162, 8 beneficiniries is small,
that is why limit is 64.
afalaleev added a commit to GolosChain/golos that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2018
As a comment option, authors should be able to specify a number of
beneficiaries to receive a percentage of the rewards and the percent of
the potential liquid rewards to receive as Steem Power. Unallocated
rewards by default go to the author as they currently do.

Inspired by steemit#773 and supported by the community.

Commit contains fix miscalculation when paying beneficiaries steemit#909 .

As described in steemit#2162, 8 beneficiniries is small,
that is why limit is 64.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants