Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 17. (Read 107064 times)
it is interesting, why steemit dont use advertising selling on steemit platform? it can interested a lot of investors. Also it will help to support sbd withou steem dump.
I already had the plan for Steem in 2014:
Nobody loves inflation, but few people regard it as a horrendous evil to be avoided at any cost. Normal people do not expect that a hoard of cash will keep its value, much less grow more valuable, by itself, over time. And, for the good of the economy, they shouldn't "invest" in cash or other "dead" assets: they should use their intelligence to choose productive enterprises, and invest in them.
Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists.
I think anonymint hit this nail on the head. The issue is not inflation it's how the inflation is distributed. Which is generally NOT to the people responsible for creating production (knowledge, workers, investors)
Build it into a game that becomes a massive hit.
Note 'game' has a wider scope of context than what you might be thinking. For example, life is game.
Continue your fantasies please.
Sometimes I think out-of-the-box.
And this produced how many million user products?
I have produced (one as a co-developer) three separate "million user" level products since 1980s. With a lot of goofing off vacation time in between (mea culpa).
Your stance is fundamentally incongruent with the open source movement. Open source projects will spawn more and more granularly (smaller teams) and stored capital and top-down organization will become more and more irrelevant.
This is a virtual new economy; we only need to click a button to make an investment. We don't need to travel across the world. And we don't need to invest everything in one thing or two things, thus we don't need to know all the answers before the questions can even be asked. Creativity spawns serendipitously not as planned (even my own work lately proves this is true, because I didn't plan all the ideas I discovered along the way).
Open source is the odds of large numbers.
"Given enough eye balls, all bugs are shallow"— Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds
"Given enough experiments, all possibilities are achievable"— Shelby Moore III paraphrasing Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds
Eric Raymond noted that is the only known positive-scaling law in software engineering, i.e. that efficiency improves the more autonomous N actors involved. Design by top-down grouping or committee is not the same scaling law.
We don't have time to waste on top-down bureaucracy.
Warren Buffett doesn't do angel investing, because he wants to evaluate companies based on well established metrics. Angel investing is a game of more risky probabilities. Thus efficiency of scattershot is more important. Angel investing will become less and less like an exhaustive evaluation and more and more spontaneous and small, e.g. KickStarter. Everyone gives a little bit, not one big whale slowing everything down.
The Knowledge Age is the end of the road for large stored capital. The power-law distribution of wealth will shift to stored knowledge. Actionable knowledge will be power-law distributed. It already is. Which is why when you are searching for a needle in a haystack, don't tell the needle to jump to your castle.
Most of the impoverished don't have a credit card nor bank account.
The Paypal plan.
The reason Paypal couldn't just issue everyone in the developing world an account is because of jealousy thus legal and political risk. Governments would resist take over of their financial control by an overtly fascist corporation.
Peter Thiel et al are more clever.
Issue everyone a supranational digital account that is "decentralized and controlled by no one", when in fact it is centralized and controlled by the fascist powers-that-be.
Use this to force other countries into submission when they attempt to offer their own top-down centralized digital currencies, e.g. Ecuador.
The people are trapped either way in a fully traceable block chain and NWO Technocracy.
Monero (portmanteau of money+dying euro?) offers no hope of scaling to avert this rapidly developing fascist outcome.
C'est la vie. Fait accompli.
And the competing and equally devastating Apple Plan.
How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?
Nobody loves inflation, but few people regard it as a horrendous evil to be avoided at any cost. Normal people do not expect that a hoard of cash will keep its value, much less grow more valuable, by itself, over time. And, for the good of the economy, they shouldn't "invest" in cash or other "dead" assets: they should use their intelligence to choose productive enterprises, and invest in them.
Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists.
I think anonymint hit this nail on the head. The issue is not inflation it's how the inflation is distributed. Which is generally NOT to the people responsible for creating production (knowledge, workers, investors)
Any other ideas of how to scale a crypto-currency to beyond 10 million users within 3 years or less from launch?
Build it into a game that becomes a massive hit.
Note 'game' has a wider scope of context than what you might be thinking. For example, life is game.
Oh, poor little him!
Continue your fantasies please.
Sometimes I think out-of-the-box.
I am also a business angel, funding people's things ever since 2004.
And this produced how many million user products?
I have produced (one as a co-developer) three separate "million user" level products since 1980s. With a lot of goofing off vacation time in between (mea culpa).
Your stance is fundamentally incongruent with the open source movement. Open source projects will spawn more and more granularly (smaller teams) and stored capital and top-down organization will become more and more irrelevant.
This is a virtual new economy; we only need to click a button to make an investment. We don't need to travel across the world. And we don't need to invest everything in one thing or two things, thus we don't need to know all the answers before the questions can even be asked. Creativity spawns serendipitously not as planned (even my own work lately proves this is true, because I didn't plan all the ideas I discovered along the way).
Open source is the odds of large numbers.
"Given enough eye balls, all bugs are shallow"— Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds
"Given enough experiments, all possibilities are achievable"— Shelby Moore III paraphrasing Eric Raymond paraphrasing Linus Torvalds
Eric Raymond noted that is the only known positive-scaling law in software engineering, i.e. that efficiency improves the more autonomous N actors involved. Design by top-down grouping or committee is not the same scaling law.
We don't have time to waste on top-down bureaucracy.
Warren Buffett doesn't do angel investing, because he wants to evaluate companies based on well established metrics. Angel investing is a game of more risky probabilities. Thus efficiency of scattershot is more important. Angel investing will become less and less like an exhaustive evaluation and more and more spontaneous and small, e.g. KickStarter. Everyone gives a little bit, not one big whale slowing everything down.
The Knowledge Age is the end of the road for large stored capital. The power-law distribution of wealth will shift to stored knowledge. Actionable knowledge will be power-law distributed. It already is. Which is why when you are searching for a needle in a haystack, don't tell the needle to jump to your castle.
It doesn't matter if Paypal accepts Bitcoin because users who are not investors (e.g. especially females and the billions of impoverished) have no incentive to convert from their unit-of-account (dollars) to BTC just to pay for something. They might as well just fund their Paypal transactions with their credit card or bank account. Bitcoin will not become the unit-of-account without the blessing of the government, because it has no distribution scale.
Most of the impoverished don't have a credit card nor bank account.
The Paypal plan.
The reason Paypal couldn't just issue everyone in the developing world an account is because of jealousy thus legal and political risk. Governments would resist take over of their financial control by an overtly fascist corporation.
Peter Thiel et al are more clever.
Issue everyone a supranational digital account that is "decentralized and controlled by no one", when in fact it is centralized and controlled by the fascist powers-that-be.
Use this to force other countries into submission when they attempt to offer their own top-down centralized digital currencies, e.g. Ecuador.
The people are trapped either way in a fully traceable block chain and NWO Technocracy.
Monero (portmanteau of money+dying euro?) offers no hope of scaling to avert this rapidly developing fascist outcome.
C'est la vie. Fait accompli.
And the competing and equally devastating Apple Plan.
It's not a ponzi scheme, it's a socially funded blog system
IMO you are right on this one- Steemit users get rewards for posting
- Steem holders/investors pay for it
I guess OPs problem is that the "devs" are holding the funds from what they are paying out. I see what he means by this topic, but i dont see any solution to keep the funds decentralized, since only this would resolve this problem. And this is clearly not a ponzi/ pyramid scheme.
It's not a ponzi scheme, it's a socially funded blog system
Steem holders buy Steem for anticipation of future value, however this is not just pure speculation. In the future Steemit will have many more features just like facebook , even perhaps a sustainable advertising system.
Therefore I would classify STEEM as a social currency. In the future you can even built a financial system on it, like trading, lending, and so on. A true P2P commerce with a social aspect to it. It will be sustainable.
It will be big, and it is true that today STEEM's value is largely speculative, in the future there will be a lot of value in it. So those that buy STEEM now, probably anticipate this.
This is how STEEM's economics work. I am an economic expert with 10+ years of experience in financial markets/ economics. I know what I am talking about.
https://steemit.com/@profitgenerator
- Steemit users get rewards for posting
- Steem holders/investors pay for it
Steem holders buy Steem for anticipation of future value, however this is not just pure speculation. In the future Steemit will have many more features just like facebook , even perhaps a sustainable advertising system.
Therefore I would classify STEEM as a social currency. In the future you can even built a financial system on it, like trading, lending, and so on. A true P2P commerce with a social aspect to it. It will be sustainable.
It will be big, and it is true that today STEEM's value is largely speculative, in the future there will be a lot of value in it. So those that buy STEEM now, probably anticipate this.
This is how STEEM's economics work. I am an economic expert with 10+ years of experience in financial markets/ economics. I know what I am talking about.
https://steemit.com/@profitgenerator
Reddit CEO Caught Altering User Content, Something That Can't Happen With Steemit. 
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cylonmaker2053/reddit-ceo-caught-altering-user-content-something-that-can-t-happen-with-steemit
https://steemit.com/steemit/@cylonmaker2053/reddit-ceo-caught-altering-user-content-something-that-can-t-happen-with-steemit
In my opinion, he really did well in this interview.
I think so!
In my opinion, he really did well in this interview.
if you think that Ned and Dan have complete control over STEEM, then perhaps you should check out: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitguide/steemitguide-what-is-a-exactly-is-a-steem-witness-and-why-every-user-should-vote
Dan has some errors in that video (ironically/coincidentally yesterday I was viewing that video). Sorry he is wrong too often (where it matters significantly). Here is another example of where he is wrong:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16960504
Errors:
0:40 - "witness are under control of the shareholders". Incorrect. They can do whatever they want until they are replaced by an election.
0:45 - "actually more secure than Bitcoin". Incorrect. I explain why in my white paper.
0:48 - "proof-of-work is ... burn most money is most secure ... proof-of-stake ... is also a scarce resource". Incorrect.
1:40 - "all systems are vulnerable to 51% attack ... no such thing as avoiding 51% attack". Incorrect. PoS is economically vulnerable to double-spends, Bitcoin is not. I explain this in my white paper. Correct that all systems have some form of 51% attack, but PoS has additional 51% attack vectors.
2:10 - "where we get the advantage over proof-of-work is that the cost of acquiring the 51% is much higher in proof-of-stake". Incorrect. Much easier to borrow or rent 51% stake than to rent 51% of mining farms. The mining farms have too much at stake. The shareholders have nearly nothing-at-stake because of their shares being an undersupplied public good. Worse yet, it may be more profitable for the whales to double-spend and short, than to sell their stake straight up.
2:20 - "because DPoS uses deterministic manner of producing blocks, we don't have to rely on random chance". Incorrect. He fundamentally does not understand resiliency and liveness. I explain this in detail in my white paper. Thus he doesn't understand why Graphene will never scale up to the world. Dunning-Kruger-esque.
3:30 - "get non-linear growth in the ability to achieve things when you concentrate capital". Incorrect. He is touting the concentration of nodes to 110 witnesses as being some advantage, because he never figured out how to otherwise solve the propagation scaling issue that plagues an unbounded number of nodes. But it doesn't follow that a concentration, bounded, and permissioned, provides resiliency and liveness. He is conflating.
I'll take a look into ur paper, just read ur comment, when u talk about puttin "the control in the hands of those who transact the most" it reminds me NEM with the proof of importance
Proof-of-importance is an obfuscation of proof-of-stake, because it doesn't burn transaction fees, so a cartel majority of stake holders (who thus can control which chain wins) could do as many transactions as they want, paying any transaction fees to themselves:
the POI algorithm, albeit unique, is not a huge amount different than a regular POS algorithm, the only difference being that it takes into consideration how many transactions you make.
If you think it can easily be cheated, well i guess all you need to do is move your funds across different accounts constantly.
If you think it can easily be cheated, well i guess all you need to do is move your funds across different accounts constantly.
Thanks for confirming it is just proof-of-stake with some weighting by the transaction graph. That is my read also:
http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf#section.7
As for whether it's security could be gamed (leading to The DAO like failure), well I would argue that the risk is nonzero (given that anyone can make a lot of transactions) until it has been properly peer reviewed. You can't trust one guy to do this sort of analysis.
Additionally NEM's consensus ordering system has numerous other deficiencies that I don't have time to detail now. After my white paper is published, we can go into it. As to discuss it now, would basically require revealing much of my white paper before I am ready to.
but as far as i can tell, graphene is beast techno.. and the consensus..? it's there to evolve I think its a nice experiment overall
thx for ur input mate
I think its a nice experiment overallthx for ur input mate
Are you Australian? If so, we are nearby, I am in the Philippines.
I am working on implementing a solution that I claim will nullify most of the dictatorial power of election (stake) and also doesn't require proof-of-work waste/dictatorship:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16979534
It also in theory (afaics) has orders-of-magnitude better performance and scaling than DPoS.
I have already the design written in a rough draft of a white paper and am finishing up the final draft in Markdown syntax. The white paper needs more peer review. I will have two people I trust reading it this week. Let's see if they find any flaw.
If I can get closer to a testnet implementation, we can talk about collaboration. I'd rather not interfere with you until I am sure I have something that is realistically going to make it to release.
(Unfortunately I am chronically very ill with liver+digestive health debacle, so I don't know for sure if I can do what I am trying to do. I will be at a research hospital in 2nd week of January to finally get a diagnosis for my condition and I am hoping some treatment or cure for it. Fingers crossed. Until then my productivity and cognitive concentration/energy/clarity is roughly 1/4 of normal and the 3/4 is discombobulated "zombifried" delirium.)
Iam mostly somewhere between EU and Asia..
I'll take a look into ur paper, just read ur comment, when u talk about puttin "the control in the hands of those who transact the most" it reminds me NEM with the proof of importance
...i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
So you are going to have both steemit and busy on the same blockchain? How will that work?
Steem can have tons of apps build on the same blockchain, sharing or not the same content. You can filter the content you want to show, from any source/apps, or share the same content. Or you can also just ignore the content part and enjoy the use of the blockchain as a backend/database bootstrapping wallets & crypto with 0 transaction fee & 3s block time, for your app.
i think busy and steemit will just share the content at least for the blogging part.
One of the issues perhaps is standardization of data formats. Remember before the W3C we had Netscape doing hokey things with HTML such as
if you think that Ned and Dan have complete control over STEEM, then perhaps you should check out: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitguide/steemitguide-what-is-a-exactly-is-a-steem-witness-and-why-every-user-should-vote
Dan has some errors in that video (ironically/coincidentally yesterday I was viewing that video). Sorry he is wrong too often (where it matters significantly). Here is another example of where he is wrong:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16960504
(Beautiful "baby blue eyes") Dan is a creative, smart, and highly accomplished (in blockchains) person (heck I'd like to collaborate with him on s/w projects if his decisions could be overridden when necessary). But he has these ink blot moments.
Dan had the great insight for TaPoS. And I prompted the necessary correction (tweak) to it in 2013:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3815211
Quoted so it can't be deleted:
This proposal appears to be flawed, unless I am missing something. I have only read the first 4 pages thus far.
1. You propose to decrease the coin rewards as coin-days-destroyed volume increases, so this makes it less costly for an attacker to obtain > 50% of the hash rate assuming the attacker includes all the transactions. You apparently are attempting to imply there is no useful attack to do if the attacker is including the most coin-days-destroyed? Please confirm or deny then I will dig into more analysis of this vector.
2. Also how do you choose between someone who generates a proof-of-work hash with lower coin-days-destroyed several times sooner than the network propagation delay versus another who generates it that much delayed with a higher coin-days-destroyed? If you choose the latter, then you've killed the proof-of-work incentive because it means it will always pay to be later and wait for more transactions to arrive.
3. You claim to defeat my Transactions Withholding Attack, by blacklisting those who send blocks with transactions that were not recently seen by all miners. I retorted against this recently. This centralizes the network (all for one and one for all outcome) by requiring every miner to be responsible for the incoming network connectivity of other miners. And it centralizes the network in other ways, such it can't tolerate a temporary partitioning of the network due to connectivity outages.
P.S. By coin-days-destroyed, I assume you mean coin value x days, otherwise you would motivate proliferation of dust.
1. You propose to decrease the coin rewards as coin-days-destroyed volume increases, so this makes it less costly for an attacker to obtain > 50% of the hash rate assuming the attacker includes all the transactions. You apparently are attempting to imply there is no useful attack to do if the attacker is including the most coin-days-destroyed? Please confirm or deny then I will dig into more analysis of this vector.
2. Also how do you choose between someone who generates a proof-of-work hash with lower coin-days-destroyed several times sooner than the network propagation delay versus another who generates it that much delayed with a higher coin-days-destroyed? If you choose the latter, then you've killed the proof-of-work incentive because it means it will always pay to be later and wait for more transactions to arrive.
3. You claim to defeat my Transactions Withholding Attack, by blacklisting those who send blocks with transactions that were not recently seen by all miners. I retorted against this recently. This centralizes the network (all for one and one for all outcome) by requiring every miner to be responsible for the incoming network connectivity of other miners. And it centralizes the network in other ways, such it can't tolerate a temporary partitioning of the network due to connectivity outages.
P.S. By coin-days-destroyed, I assume you mean coin value x days, otherwise you would motivate proliferation of dust.
After some consideration I have decided to replace proof-of-work all together and use transaction fees to regulate block production. A new block is produced once enough transaction fees have been accumulated. The node that generates the transaction with sufficient fees broadcasts it. Ultimately all that matters is that the network reaches consensus and orphans are no issue. Nodes in the network can even stop propagating new blocks for a couple of minutes after the previous block. If transactions are coming to quickly I simply up the transaction fee like you would adjust the difficulty in BTC. These fees are then destroyed to pay dividends rather than paid to a miner.
As a result it doesn't matter how much hash power you have because you must *pay* to submit a block and the best-fit block is the one with the most coin-days destroyed so even if you pay to submit a block with no transactions, it will be rejected.
3. Does not centralize the network, it is a local calculation performed by all nodes relative to their peers.
Yes, coin value * days.
but as far as i can tell, graphene is beast techno.. and the consensus..? it's there to evolve I think its a nice experiment overall
thx for ur input mate
I think its a nice experiment overallthx for ur input mate
Are you Australian? If so, we are nearby, I am in the Philippines.
I am working on implementing a solution that I claim will nullify most of the dictatorial power of election (stake) and also doesn't require proof-of-work waste/dictatorship:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16979534
It also in theory (afaics) has orders-of-magnitude better performance and scaling than DPoS.
I have already the design written in a rough draft of a white paper and am finishing up the final draft in Markdown syntax. The white paper needs more peer review. I will have two people I trust reading it this week. Let's see if they find any flaw.
If I can get closer to a testnet implementation, we can talk about collaboration. I'd rather not interfere with you until I am sure I have something that is realistically going to make it to release.
(Unfortunately I am chronically very ill with liver+digestive health debacle, so I don't know for sure if I can do what I am trying to do. I will be at a research hospital in 2nd week of January to finally get a diagnosis for my condition and I am hoping some treatment or cure for it. Fingers crossed. Until then my productivity and cognitive concentration/energy/clarity is roughly 1/4 of normal and the 3/4 is discombobulated "zombifried" delirium.)
i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
So you are going to have both steemit and busy on the same blockchain? How will that work?
i think busy and steemit will just share the content at least for the blogging part.
i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
So you are going to have both steemit and busy on the same blockchain? How will that work?
Steem Update 0.16.0 Infographic Preview, be prepared for the upcoming STEEM Hardfork
https://steemit.com/steemitguide/@steemitguide/steem-update-0-16-0-infographic-preview-be-prepared-for-the-upcoming-steem-hardfork
Steemit's First 'Fest' Reveals the Power of Blockchain Community
http://www.coindesk.com/steemfest-reveals-the-power-of-blockchain-community/
And Ned was on TV, have a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5JXYajba4
CoinDesk On Tap, STEEM Meetup NYC and New Venture
https://steemit.com/steem/@charlieshrem/coindesk-on-tap-steem-meetup-nyc-and-new-venture
if you think that Ned and Dan have complete control over STEEM, then perhaps you should check out: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitguide/steemitguide-what-is-a-exactly-is-a-steem-witness-and-why-every-user-should-vote
https://steemit.com/steemitguide/@steemitguide/steem-update-0-16-0-infographic-preview-be-prepared-for-the-upcoming-steem-hardfork
Steemit's First 'Fest' Reveals the Power of Blockchain Community
http://www.coindesk.com/steemfest-reveals-the-power-of-blockchain-community/
And Ned was on TV, have a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5JXYajba4
CoinDesk On Tap, STEEM Meetup NYC and New Venture
https://steemit.com/steem/@charlieshrem/coindesk-on-tap-steem-meetup-nyc-and-new-venture
if you think that Ned and Dan have complete control over STEEM, then perhaps you should check out: https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitguide/steemitguide-what-is-a-exactly-is-a-steem-witness-and-why-every-user-should-vote
Guys, I had and have literally nothing to do with the design or implementation of busy.org. I donated some money to them to finish development because they had what looked like a solid team and good progress but not really enough funding to keep going. I've also give them some advice but primarily on organization and funding. Most if not all of the concepts and vision for busy were in place and even partially implemented before I got involved with it at all.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
Thank you @smooth for the clarification. It was only speculation on my part and you have addressed it. My apology for being too paranoid.
I am all for many competing experiments, so best of luck to them.
Can you confirm whether their project is for the Steem blockchain or whether they are considering splintering off and making their own fork of Graphene? Or is that not to be public information for the time being?
Perhaps the drop from 104 to 13 weeks cashout has the potential of concentrating the money supply more (whales who stay can accumulate dumped tokens) and also splintering the ecosystem as some whales can cashout to finance other competing blockchain forks. I would think though that everyone must understand how difficult it is to onboard a sufficient critical mass of users, thus splintering is suicidal, unless it offers some key advantage that is drastically improved in terms of onboarding.
@iamnotback
i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
Well it can't hurt to start off building your apps on the Steem since that is where the audience and exposure is for the moment, then you can keep your options open in terms of the future. For example, if I am true to my word and end up offering a blockchain that fixes the following egregious problem of DPoS, perhaps you all might want to consider your options at that future time.
Quote from: @AnonyMint's whitepaper
6.2 Censorship
In the case where the whales do form a monolithic majority voting bloc, they can elect all of the witnesses and thus refuse to add specific transactions to the blockchain. There are numerous profit motives and conflict of interest scenarios that make such censorship plausible. For example, in the case of the Steem blockchain, the owners of Steemit.com Inc., who apparently control a majority of the stake, could elect witnesses which block the transactions that compete with their vested interests, what ever they may be. One could imagine ecosystem applications from third parties experiencing conflicts-of-interest which destroy their business models.
Might makes right and the minority voting power (which could be the majority of the participants depending on whom knows and cares that they are affected) can do nothing about this except perhaps sell their stake.
The argument that the cartel voting bloc would not do this because it would crater the price and adoption is not the only possible scenario. The offenses could be isolated to one smaller target at a time, thus destroying and replacing competitors piecemeal without raising sufficient ruckus to constitute a ecosystem wide mutiny.[backdealings]
References
[backdealings]: smoothie, smooth, r0ach, monsterer, DecentralizeEconomics. Bitshares' DPoS "behind-the-scenes" politics. Bitcointalk.org, “The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum” thread, posts #137–155, Sep 9, 2015.
In the case where the whales do form a monolithic majority voting bloc, they can elect all of the witnesses and thus refuse to add specific transactions to the blockchain. There are numerous profit motives and conflict of interest scenarios that make such censorship plausible. For example, in the case of the Steem blockchain, the owners of Steemit.com Inc., who apparently control a majority of the stake, could elect witnesses which block the transactions that compete with their vested interests, what ever they may be. One could imagine ecosystem applications from third parties experiencing conflicts-of-interest which destroy their business models.
Might makes right and the minority voting power (which could be the majority of the participants depending on whom knows and cares that they are affected) can do nothing about this except perhaps sell their stake.
The argument that the cartel voting bloc would not do this because it would crater the price and adoption is not the only possible scenario. The offenses could be isolated to one smaller target at a time, thus destroying and replacing competitors piecemeal without raising sufficient ruckus to constitute a ecosystem wide mutiny.[backdealings]
References
[backdealings]: smoothie, smooth, r0ach, monsterer, DecentralizeEconomics. Bitshares' DPoS "behind-the-scenes" politics. Bitcointalk.org, “The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum” thread, posts #137–155, Sep 9, 2015.
Please refer to the other flaws I explained about DPoS as a prerequisite to reading the above.
I have never believed in Election.
it's fake democracy allowing the richest to buy power. Election always ending corrupted, serving the richest.
but as far as i can tell, graphene is beast techno.. and the consensus..? it's there to evolve
I think its a nice experiment overallthx for ur input mate
Guys, I had and have literally nothing to do with the design or implementation of busy.org. I donated some money to them to finish development because they had what looked like a solid team and good progress but not really enough funding to keep going. I've also give them some advice but primarily on organization and funding. Most if not all of the concepts and vision for busy were in place and even partially implemented before I got involved with it at all.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
Thank you @smooth for the clarification. It was only speculation on my part and you have addressed it. My apology for being too paranoid.
I am all for many competing experiments, so best of luck to them.
Can you confirm whether their project is for the Steem blockchain or whether they are considering splintering off and making their own fork of Graphene? Or is that not to be public information for the time being?
Perhaps the drop from 104 to 13 weeks cashout has the potential of concentrating the money supply more (whales who stay can accumulate dumped tokens) and also splintering the ecosystem as some whales can cashout to finance other competing blockchain forks. I would think though that everyone must understand how difficult it is to onboard a sufficient critical mass of users, thus splintering is suicidal, unless it offers some key advantage that is drastically improved in terms of onboarding.
@iamnotback
i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
Well it can't hurt to start off building your apps on the Steem since that is where the audience and exposure is for the moment, then you can keep your options open in terms of the future. For example, if I am true to my word and end up offering a blockchain that fixes the following egregious problem of DPoS, perhaps you all might want to consider your options at that future time.
Quote from: @AnonyMint's whitepaper
6.2 Censorship
In the case where the whales do form a monolithic majority voting bloc, they can elect all of the witnesses and thus refuse to add specific transactions to the blockchain. There are numerous profit motives and conflict of interest scenarios that make such censorship plausible. For example, in the case of the Steem blockchain, the owners of Steemit.com Inc., who apparently control a majority of the stake, could elect witnesses which block the transactions that compete with their vested interests, what ever they may be. One could imagine ecosystem applications from third parties experiencing conflicts-of-interest which destroy their business models.
Might makes right and the minority voting power (which could be the majority of the participants depending on whom knows and cares that they are affected) can do nothing about this except perhaps sell their stake.
The argument that the cartel voting bloc would not do this because it would crater the price and adoption is not the only possible scenario. The offenses could be isolated to one smaller target at a time, thus destroying and replacing competitors piecemeal without raising sufficient ruckus to constitute a ecosystem wide mutiny.[backdealings]
References
[backdealings]: smoothie, smooth, r0ach, monsterer, DecentralizeEconomics. Bitshares' DPoS "behind-the-scenes" politics. Bitcointalk.org, “The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum” thread, posts #137–155, Sep 9, 2015.
In the case where the whales do form a monolithic majority voting bloc, they can elect all of the witnesses and thus refuse to add specific transactions to the blockchain. There are numerous profit motives and conflict of interest scenarios that make such censorship plausible. For example, in the case of the Steem blockchain, the owners of Steemit.com Inc., who apparently control a majority of the stake, could elect witnesses which block the transactions that compete with their vested interests, what ever they may be. One could imagine ecosystem applications from third parties experiencing conflicts-of-interest which destroy their business models.
Might makes right and the minority voting power (which could be the majority of the participants depending on whom knows and cares that they are affected) can do nothing about this except perhaps sell their stake.
The argument that the cartel voting bloc would not do this because it would crater the price and adoption is not the only possible scenario. The offenses could be isolated to one smaller target at a time, thus destroying and replacing competitors piecemeal without raising sufficient ruckus to constitute a ecosystem wide mutiny.[backdealings]
References
[backdealings]: smoothie, smooth, r0ach, monsterer, DecentralizeEconomics. Bitshares' DPoS "behind-the-scenes" politics. Bitcointalk.org, “The state of crypto - The only serious thread on the subforum” thread, posts #137–155, Sep 9, 2015.
Please refer to the other flaws I explained about DPoS as a prerequisite to reading the above.
Guys, I had and have literally nothing to do with the design or implementation of busy.org. I donated some money to them to finish development because they had what looked like a solid team and good progress but not really enough funding to keep going. I've also give them some advice but primarily on organization and funding. Most if not all of the concepts and vision for busy were in place and even partially implemented before I got involved with it at all.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
Thank you @smooth for the clarification. It was only speculation on my part and you have addressed it. My apology for being too paranoid.
I am all for many competing experiments, so best of luck to them.
Can you confirm whether their project is for the Steem blockchain or whether they are considering splintering off and making their own fork of Graphene? Or is that not to be public information for the time being?
Perhaps the drop from 104 to 13 weeks cashout has the potential of concentrating the money supply more (whales who stay can accumulate dumped tokens) and also splintering the ecosystem as some whales can cashout to finance other competing blockchain forks. I would think though that everyone must understand how difficult it is to onboard a sufficient critical mass of users, thus splintering is suicidal, unless it offers some key advantage that is drastically improved in terms of onboarding.
i can confirm it's on the Steem blockchain. The idea of a fork was considered but i do believe it's more easy (and still possible) to take some power on the Steem blockchain and impose certain enhancement and benefit from an existing community and supports
Guys, I had and have literally nothing to do with the design or implementation of busy.org. I donated some money to them to finish development because they had what looked like a solid team and good progress but not really enough funding to keep going. I've also give them some advice but primarily on organization and funding. Most if not all of the concepts and vision for busy were in place and even partially implemented before I got involved with it at all.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
So i don't know what this comment about stealing ideas is about (I didn't read all the past messages) but certainly nothing like that happened with busy. Though I will say if these 'ideas' involved posts on bitcointalk that is certainly going to be fair game in practice; anyone can find those with a web search.
Thank you @smooth for the clarification. It was only speculation on my part and you have addressed it. My apology for being too paranoid.
I am all for many competing experiments, so best of luck to them.
Can you confirm whether their project is for the Steem blockchain or whether they are considering splintering off and making their own fork of Graphene? Or is that not to be public information for the time being?
Perhaps the drop from 104 to 13 weeks cashout has the potential of concentrating the money supply more (whales who stay can accumulate dumped tokens) and also splintering the ecosystem as some whales can cashout to finance other competing blockchain forks. I would think though that everyone must understand how difficult it is to onboard a sufficient critical mass of users, thus splintering is suicidal, unless it offers some key advantage that is drastically improved in terms of onboarding.
Jump to: