Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 22. (Read 107069 times)
Fuck steemit and his founders
The more steempower someone has, the more his/her vote is worth and by upvoting the blogs/posts he likes he is rewarding the authors a portion of the daily "mining rewards"
It also translates to "The richer you are, the more his/her vote is worth and by upvoting wives/gf/buddy/friends/relatives/new-friends-they-got-to-know-on-steemit/authors-who-usually-got-upvoted-a-lot-even though-their-content-is-shit a portion of the daily "mining rewards" which come from the pockets of investors e.g. Laonie who invested with 400 BTC"
What a "great" idea to get ultra rich within 6 months... I am sure steemit bloggers and the founders can sleep well at night :p
I still dont understand how it even works?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
Where does the bitcoin mining rewards come from?
Instead of having miners with huge or small hash rates competing for the mining rewards, it's now bloggers with huge or small upvotes that compete for the mining/blogging rewards.
The more steempower someone has, the more his/her vote is worth and by upvoting the blogs/posts he likes he is rewarding the authors a portion of the daily "mining rewards".
I still dont understand how it even works?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf
I still dont understand how it even works?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
I got about $1000 from one of my blog posts, but others hardly got anything.
Where does the money(steem) come from?
If some whales upvote me, does it deduct that amount of steem from their accounts to credit me?
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread.
The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments:
https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2
Ok thanks for the answer. So if I am the only one powered up I will receive all the steem that was meant to be distributed to all SP holders correct? Just want to make sure
The math is a bit more complex. Suffice to say that the lower the ratio of SP to non-SP, then the more (than their "proportional" relative to total inflation) share of the inflation that the SP holders get. And all SP holders get a proportional share relative to other SP holders.
In other words, as that ratio declines from ~90%, the inflation is putting more of the market cap in your pocket if you are a SP holder. The lower the ratio, the faster your share of the market cap grows. Above ~90% ratio, as an SP holder you are being debased and losing share of the market cap.
Edit: this means if the whales don't power down, their share of the money supply will be growing until this new change to lower the power down to 3 months duration! So it means the whale concentration problem can get worse. It is going to be very interesting to see how they try to extract the project from the initial effects of the sneaky stealthmine ("premine").
Yeah Im curious to see especially what the steemit account will do.
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread.
The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments:
https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2
Ok thanks for the answer. So if I am the only one powered up I will receive all the steem that was meant to be distributed to all SP holders correct? Just want to make sure
The math is a bit more complex. Suffice to say that the lower the ratio of SP to non-SP, then the more (than their "proportional" relative to total inflation) share of the inflation that the SP holders get. And all SP holders get a proportional share relative to other SP holders.
In other words, as that ratio declines from ~90%, the inflation is putting more of the market cap in your pocket if you are a SP holder. The lower the ratio, the faster your share of the market cap grows. Above ~90% ratio, as an SP holder you are being debased and losing share of the market cap.
Edit: this means if the whales don't power down, their share of the money supply will be growing under this new change to lower the power down to 3 months duration! So it means the whale concentration problem can get worse. It is going to be very interesting to see how they try to extract the project from the initial effects of the sneaky stealthmine ("premine").
Quote from: @nobrainleftinthehouse
I thought I fired you?
...
People who build juggernauts spend time trolling people on steemit! Totally makes sense! LOL!
...
People who build juggernauts spend time trolling people on steemit! Totally makes sense! LOL!
You'll be the clueless poster boy (throwing stones at shadows) for those who thought they fired the completion of the trilogy of Mark Zuckerberg, Satoshi, and AnonyMint. Seems @theymos, @gmaxwell and some others shared your delusion.
Stay tuned...
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread.
The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments:
https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2
Ok thanks for the answer. So if I am the only one powered up I will receive all the steem that was meant to be distributed to all SP holders correct? Just want to make sure
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Yes this is correct. When the percentage of SP is less than 90%, then there is an apprecation of share aggregating to the SP holders. This increases as the SP share decreases. I had covered this math in one of my blogs or comment posts on Steem. It is linked upthread some where in this thread.
The chart is here and the detailed math discussion is in the comments:
https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-2
Part of the new issued coins are allocated to SP holders. This means that the less Steem is powered up the more coins are being allocated to existing SP holders. So the new changes ( more liquid steem) basically creates a new incentive to stay powered up because there would be less steem powered up. Please let me know if I am missing something but that's how I understand it.
Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.
Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting?
I thought about it some and didn't come up with anything...
There is a solution at least when your coins are not used as margin. It may have been proposed before?
This also fixes the problem with exchanges stealing funds.
That is sign to a script which says you can only spend those designated coins (which you've chosen to deposit with the exchange) to the exchange's address, unless the exchange has signed a release and/or there could be an optional timeout.
So when you trade on the exchange, you send the exchange a signature to release that many coins to the exchange. The exchange doesn't have to wait for confirmation on the blockchain, because the signer can't undo the signature nor double-spend it.
Thus you, but not the exchange, can vote with your stake until you've signed it over to the exchange.
Exchanges may not adopt this, because they love floating on your money. But its adoption and non-adoption would be a way of distinguishing the honest from the corrupt exchanges.
@smooth now you know I do sometimes share my ideas before I can implement them.
Hopefully this isn't happening just so Dan and founders can withdraw their $millions quickly
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/proposed-changes-to-steem-economy#@ned/re-jrcornel-re-ats-david-re-steemitblog-proposed-changes-to-steem-economy-20161104t211733693z
Quote
[-]ned · 3 days ago
Dan & I will not be powering down during the three month period after this is implemented.
Dan & I will not be powering down during the three month period after this is implemented.
Yes I saw that too. What about the Steem, Inc. account which has something like 40% of the money supply?
Thats the only reason I'm still holding STEEM. Because of that fact the company is still good for a buyout.
No, im not, i just respect people who are making something unique/constructive.
I mentioned Dan today in a respectful context:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16872568
You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc
It is not crying. It is an objective analysis of the winner-take-all devolution and the deleterious effects on ecosystem uptake.
And yes we are free to make something unique and better.
I suppose you are an investor in Steem. Btw, I have ~5000 SP.
You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc
It is not crying. It is an objective analysis of the winner-take-all devolution and the deleterious effects on ecosystem uptake.
And yes we are free to make something unique and better.
I suppose you are an investor in Steem. Btw, I have ~5000 SP.
Lol and whats the problem with that 80%? They have to fund the development, etc.
Why didn't you invented "Steem"? They had a good idea, they had skills to make it, they deserve the reward.
You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc
Why didn't you invented "Steem"? They had a good idea, they had skills to make it, they deserve the reward.
You are free to make something unique and not cry about dev premines,etc
Coindesk has turned full auto retard shills for central banks now:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coindesk-is-now-a-pure-trash-propaganda-outlet-and-must-be-destroyed-1680205
Maybe Steem can be the not as shilly news site until bankers monoplize it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coindesk-is-now-a-pure-trash-propaganda-outlet-and-must-be-destroyed-1680205
Maybe Steem can be the not as shilly news site until bankers monoplize it.
Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.
Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting? There was a very good thread on bitsharestalk.org on this however the site is down at the moment.
I thought about it some and didn't come up with anything. Please refer us to that thread when it comes back up. We could probably access an archive of that site via archive.org.
I am working on a different angle for solving the problems I see both in Satoshi's design and DPoS. I am actually coming around to the point-of-view that DPoS is superior to proof-of-work, but it has some problems also.
There won't be a perfect design, but hopefully at least we can enumerate the design axes so that the market can choose.
Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.
Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting? There was a very good thread on bitsharestalk.org on this however the site is down at the moment.
Jump to: