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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

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
@mvandeberg
Labels
HARDFORK
Milestone
Hardfork 17 - Pro...

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.
@mvandeberg mvandeberg mentioned this issue Jan 10, 2017
Closed
@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.

@mvandeberg mvandeberg self-assigned this Jan 11, 2017
@theoreticalbts theoreticalbts mentioned this issue Jan 12, 2017
Closed
@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 •
edited
Loading

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).

@mastercyb mastercyb mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2017
Closed
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2017
Add comment options extension #773
88bc6de
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2017
Implement beneficiaries and payouts #773
632f535
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 31, 2017
Fix build #773
ea878bc
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2017
Add comment options extension #773
f18be38
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2017
Implement beneficiaries and payouts #773
0e6c203
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2017
Fix build #773
ca59888
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 9, 2017
Test progress #773
009eab2
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 9, 2017
Finish Tests #773
3048a50
@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Testing is waiting on #659 to be merged.

mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Add comment options extension #773
7857fb9
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Implement beneficiaries and payouts #773
74d286a
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Fix build #773
6bb1ddd
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Test progress #773
86ff8d4
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Finish Tests #773
e1f18e6
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017
Works with reward balances #773
dc360cb
@mvandeberg mvandeberg mentioned this issue Feb 13, 2017
Merged
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2017
Beneficiary routes are their own structs and validate enforces a sort…
41bc546 
… order to prevent duplicate entries #773
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2017
Beneficiary routes are their own structs and validate enforces a sort…
97ee31c 
… order to prevent duplicate entries #773
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Add comment options extension #773
fc8b466
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Implement beneficiaries and payouts #773
4f82f1e
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix build #773
ce9d19f
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Test progress #773
a835195
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Finish Tests #773
b7e01b4
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Works with reward balances #773
fd3ebc1
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Beneficiary routes are their own structs and validate enforces a sort…
1cc5774 
… order to prevent duplicate entries #773
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix validate loop #773
f651d25
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix mistake from merge conflict #773
c9948e4
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Add comment options extension #773
786775d
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Implement beneficiaries and payouts #773
d883443
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix build #773
1e4f7c4
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Test progress #773
96909af
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Finish Tests #773
69cbd15
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Works with reward balances #773
669056c
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Beneficiary routes are their own structs and validate enforces a sort…
5acb3d5 
… order to prevent duplicate entries #773
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix validate loop #773
a82fe2c
mvandeberg pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2017
Fix mistake from merge conflict #773
096c40a
@mvandeberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Merged

@nemothenoone nemothenoone mentioned this issue Apr 25, 2017
Closed
bitphage added a commit to bitphage/golos that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2018
@bitphage
Implement multiple beneficiaries
3bf69d5 
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 afalaleev mentioned this issue Feb 26, 2018
Closed
afalaleev added a commit to GolosChain/golos that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2018
@afalaleev
Implement multiple beneficiaries. #432
b5b846c 
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
@afalaleev
Implement multiple beneficiaries. #432
9b1e0d2 
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
@afalaleev
Implement multiple beneficiaries. #432
a1bdd6f 
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
Assignees

@mvandeberg mvandeberg

Labels
HARDFORK
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Hardfork 17 - Protocol Cleanup and Si...
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@noisy @mastercyb @mvandeberg