Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 53.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Lol, and so finally:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t174300520z

Quote from: sigmajin

as opposed to investing in something with a specification that you made up because you think its equal to the real specification?

If you are going to continue to spew hatred, I am going to MUTE you. That comment is not productive and doesn't help build a community.

I didn't try to invent a specification. I based my math on the white paper. My math is accurate w.r.t. to the white paper. You are trying to claim that the white paper is incorrect. Why is it you are the only one complaining and not @theoretical, @smooth, @dantheman who've all upvoted? Why would the developers upvote if I was incorrect or at least why wouldn't they correct me?

Quote from: sigmajin

It is not vests in the vesting fund, it is steem.

Well that is what I thought. My assumption from the white paper is that there is a way of accounting for liquid STEEM and SP separately, but they both have the same value in terms of each units portion of the money supply.

But it does make it confusing when the term VESTS and vesting fund seem to imply that VESTS go in the vesting fund. But afaics none of that minutia matters to the correct mathematical computations, as I showed in my math. You are afaics just confusing yourself.

Quote from: sigmajin

its not what your chart says... thats about a 1000% increase, not 349 as you state.

Because you aren't accounting for the fact that SP holders at the start of the year are debased by the new SP holders that are paid rewards. Duh! You missed the entire big mathematical revelation in my blog which is probably why a PhD in math upvoted my blog!

Now go study my math and stop being a jerk.

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t180231288z

Quote from: sigmajin

The blogging and curation rewards alone are just 7.75%

I wrote in the blog, "how much debasement is accrued yearly to fund the various rewards paid by Steem, 77.5% of which is for blogging and curation rewards.".

That means of the 10% debasement of the money supply which is not just a forward split for SP holders, then 77.5% of the 10% (i.e. 7.75% of the total yearly increase in the money supply) is paid for blogging and curation rewards.

It is a bit annoying that you were too lazy to take the time to try to really comprehend my blog and instead immediately jumped into plastering the comments with your long-winded "walls of text" incorrect accusations.

If your attitude towards me had been more cordial from the get-go, I would have been more inspired to be amicable in my replies. As it is, I am trying to keep a smile on my face. Hope you too.

I appreciate peer review, but please take the time to comprehend really well. Whe you shoot off accusations without taking the time to comprehend a blog, you set yourself up to make mistakes and be the one wearing the asshat. I had a very good mood from writing this blog and receiving a lot of appreciation for it. And you rained on my good mood.

As well you have wasted some hours of my very scarce time.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Here come the jealous haters to suck up all my time:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@sigmajin/re-anonymint-re-sigmajin-re-streetstyle-re-piedpiper-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t140736454z

Quote from: sigmajin

Your failure to see this is probably why your math is off. Youre figuring the dilution wrong because you don't really understand whats happening. Youre imagining that bloggers get paid in steem (they don't)

You had numerous errors upthread that were rebuked by @theoretical, so until you produce a cogent canonical reference for me to review, I am going to assume you are confused. Very many people have read my blog and upvoted it, include @dantheman, @complexring, @smooth. The middle guy is a PhD mathematician.

Quote from: sigmajin

If the currency is healthy, there is no reason to believe that the marketcap would remain constant.

My point was not whether the market cap would go up, stay constant, or go down, but to not give incomplete explanations that make such assumptions as you did.

Quote from: sigmajin

Isnt this coming frpm the guy, btw, who predicted a 1000% increase in the price of steem over 5 years.

I know the blog you are referring to and it does not predict an increase in price. Perhaps you meant to write increase in market capitalization. You keep making errors. Yes I did have some myopia in that old blog, but you didn't even get the accusation correct, lol.

Come on man, stop creating butthurt animosity and go write an eloquent, concise explanation for everyone. So then we can compare math notes. For now, you seem confused and/or the explanation in the white paper is incomplete and everyone is confused until we have a canonical specification.

Steem lacks a clear specification?

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t165121636z

Quote from: sigmajin

I don't know of a more cannonical source

Lol, we are supposed to invest in a technology that has no specification. Not good.

Quote from: sigmajin

I figured out the way it works by looking at the numbers on steemd from day to day.

Oh that's reassuring. Thanks for being transparent though.

Quote from: sigmajin

youre not far off but youre either double counting something or not counting it enough

I wish you could be specific.

Quote from: sigmajin

the creation of additional vests to pay bloggers, etc devides the vesting fund

I'll repeat what I told you specifically is I think one of your errors. That is the number of SP (and thus VESTS at some multiple) created yearly is ~95% (correction: 93.875% since only blogging & curator rewards are half paid in SP) of the money supply (which includes VESTS, liquid STEEM, and SD), not some percentage of the VESTS which represent the SP. That is what makes ignoring VESTS work in my computation. The VESTS are merely a backend accounting detail. Note I have a question pending for @theoretical because I don't understand the backing of the SD.

Quote from: sigmajin

The increase in money supply all goes to the vesting fund. your 90's should all be 100

I'm still waiting for a reply from @theoretical or @smooth to explain to me the backing on the SD, which I understand where the remaining ~100 - 93.875% goes. Until then, I can't comment on this point.

But I will say that if 100 of the VESTS are given to SP holders, then you've violated the white paper. So you can't be correct and even you admit that is not the case below...

Quote from: sigmajin

So for example, these 5 steem in SP. In the yearly doubling you create 100 steem. 90 of those steem are for SP incentives, and they get added on to those 5.

So those 5 steem in SP would now be worth about 95 (out of a 200 steem money supply)

Which is exactly what my computation says also.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 10:51:54 AM

My point is you're nitpicking up the wrong tree, Polonius.

For readers who don't know it, Polonius in this context means "blowhard". So he is insulting me.

I have explained why the name can potentially not be nitpicking. It depends on how the masses perceive the importance of bad connotations such as porn. I realize porn is very pervasive now, so maybe people won't care. But when you are talking about inspiring people to come visit a site based on word of mouth or a link shared in social media, then connotations may or may not be important.

Thing is that viral can't be contained to only links and visuals. People still talk verbally. I told my Mom "Steemit" and she was was like "WTF?". My Mom is a very literary person, much more than myself. She pays attention to the meaning of words. Then again, she is 70, so maybe imagery of porn might disagree with her more than the younger crowd.

A better name could go a long way towards inspiring an ideological viral spread.

If you don't believe me or are 100% certain of your opinion, I'm sorry I don't have any more time to waste on rebuking you. Carry on with your opinion.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 10:20:44 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 10:08:08 AM

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

Are you sure I "haven't"?

That was my first connotation also (which is why Steemit didn't originally offend me too much).

But perhaps you've forgotten the data I shared recently on BCT about Reddit's demographics that it is mostly young (white?) males:

Quote from: iamnotback on July 20, 2016, 02:25:52 PM

Btw, I also wrote "(and males)" and many males thanked me in the comments. The point is I bet you are turning off the females and they have left (and for other reasons as well). Females want to congregate where other females are being chatty. Go to the posts of females and nearly all the comments are from males. Where are they building their community.

Quote from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/reddit-demographics-in-one-chart/277513/

And Reddit doesn't have this extra male overhead of exchanges, trading, arbitrage, and the lack of the ability to organize communities (subreddits) centered around female interests with rankings in those communities controlled by those who vote there.

In addition, note Reddit's usership is only ~100 million.

So the point I am making is that the females and the older people might not have Reddit in their mind when they hear Steemit.

Before I came into the cryptocoin arena in 2013, I had vaguely heard of Reddit but never used it. It would not have been in my mind had I heard Steemit at that time. I had visited the site once and decided it looked like shit and never returned until I needed to use it when BCT banned me and also when Shen-noether only wanted to discuss over there.

My point is you're nitpicking up the wrong tree, Polonius.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 10:08:08 AM

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

Are you sure I "haven't"?

That was my first connotation also (which is why Steemit didn't originally offend me too much).

But perhaps you've forgotten the data I shared recently on BCT about Reddit's demographics that it is mostly young (white?) males:

Quote from: iamnotback on July 20, 2016, 02:25:52 PM

Btw, I also wrote "(and males)" and many males thanked me in the comments. The point is I bet you are turning off the females and they have left (and for other reasons as well). Females want to congregate where other females are being chatty. Go to the posts of females and nearly all the comments are from males. Where are they building their community.

Quote from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/reddit-demographics-in-one-chart/277513/

And Reddit doesn't have this extra male overhead of exchanges, trading, arbitrage, and the lack of the ability to organize communities (subreddits) centered around female interests with rankings in those communities controlled by those who vote there.

In addition, note Reddit's usership is only ~100 million.

So the point I am making is that the females and the older people might not have Reddit in their mind when they hear Steemit.

Before I came into the cryptocoin arena in 2013, I had vaguely heard of Reddit but never used it. It would not have been in my mind had I heard Steemit at that time. I had visited the site once and decided it looked like shit and never returned until I needed to use it when BCT banned me and also when Shen-noether only wanted to discuss over there.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 05:24:21 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 08, 2016, 03:05:29 PM

The platform is named steemit Wink

Bands with crappy names: Beatles, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, The Who, Depeche Mode, The Cure....

You are a marketing neophyte. You continue to make numerous mistakes.

You're making an analogy between apple pie and baseball bats.

Usually the name of a band is not intended to implicitly describe the type of music the band creates, except perhaps in a very abstract and creative way (e.g. Smashing Pumpkins might make me think of punk rock). The band's music creates the emotional attachment and devotion, thus branding the name.

The name of a company, product, or service usually must convey what it does or is for (at least some connected meaning), as this is very important for viral spread and recall during viral mentions.

Steemit sounds like a porn site.

That is really, really bad. Again I refer you to the females who are stating how important it is that the site not be connotated with scams and negative things, in order for them to promote the site virally to their communities such as the one lady with 500 members in her cause oriented group.

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

When you get to nitpicking the name of a brand (unless it's Shitty McShitFace), then you are really scraping the barrel of valid concerns.

Sorry man but you've been completely off in left field during most of the recent discussion. I can't even understand what you are writing most of time (lately) and thus not replying. I don't mean to be disrespectful and maybe I am a literary dunce in your opinion because your text lately reads to me like gibberish (not referring to the post I am replying to). I was avoiding saying anything, but I guess it's better I inform you.

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Hell, McDonalds has a purple pile of poo named Grimace as part of their mascot team (would have loved sit in on that meeting, "Hey, Bob, it's a giant purple shit named Grimace--and we're selling food?"

Grimace is targeted to kids. It is cartoon stuff.

You need to remember to apply context.

Edit: even an abstract name such as Google, is derived or similar to ogle or goggle, which connects some meaning to searching or looking into. Even Apple had a meaning at the start. The logo was an apple with a BYTE in it.

Yeah, well you haven't figured out that reddit+steam=steemit (at least you figured the steam part, but it took me about 3 seconds after hearing the name to figure it out, but let's not let this get personal).

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2016, 08:43:15 AM

Answers (let me know if I missed something):

The supply of VESTS does not change at all when converting SD to STEEM. Not sure where you got that idea? I think VESTS are only created or destroyed by power up, power down, or rewards (that pay in SP/VESTS), unless I'm forgetting something.

If you sell SD on an exchange, literally nothing changes in terms of supply, just the owner of the existing token. That seems kind of obvious, no?

Let me share my edit of my comment, so you can better understand what appears to be ambiguous to me:

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2016, 08:43:15 AM

Yes changes in the price of STEEM (as reported by the oracles i.e. witnesses) between the time SD is created and when it is destroyed will influence the money supply (virtual supply; converted to real supply if and when the SD->STEEM conversion takes place). If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the white paper.

Can you tell me where in the white paper? I don't remember reading about the ability to retire/destroy SBD.

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2016, 08:43:15 AM

There is no special tagging of VESTS nor the STEEM/SP in the vesting fund.

Then how do we know which VESTS to transfer to the party who owns the SBD when a SBD is retired? Or what does it mean to destroy a SBD?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Answers (let me know if I missed something):

The supply of VESTS does not change at all when converting SD to STEEM. Not sure where you got that idea? I think VESTS are only created or destroyed by power up, power down, or rewards (that pay in SP/VESTS), unless I'm forgetting something.

If you sell SD on an exchange, literally nothing changes in terms of supply, just the owner of the existing token. That seems kind of obvious, no?

Yes changes in the price of STEEM (as reported by the oracles i.e. witnesses) between the time SD is created and when it is destroyed will influence the money supply (virtual supply; converted to real supply if and when the SD->STEEM conversion takes place). If I'm not mistaken that is covered in the white paper.

There is no special tagging of VESTS nor the STEEM/SP in the vesting fund.

Coinmarketcap's number is kind of made up. I think they excluded some of the steemit account but not all of it, but I'm not really sure. I've never been able to make much sense of their number, but I mostly ignore their market cap numbers on most coins anyway.

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 07:35:57 AM

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2016, 05:20:38 AM

That looks correct. In addition to being a programming issue, VESTS may be more comfortable for traditional accounting since the number of units held doesn't change except in response to specific events (power up, power down, receiving rewards).

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 05:07:24 AM

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t100336233z

Quote from: sigmajin

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

Another question?

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-bacchist-re-sigmajin-re-smooth-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t123101085z

Quote from: theoretical

When SBD is created, its initial backing is supplied by the post's reward STEEM. Any fall in the price of STEEM will result in a rise of the virtual supply (and conversely, any rise in the price of STEEM will result in a fall of the virtual supply).

Ah so the supply of vests is adjusted when the SD (aka SBD) are converted to STEEM.

But I don't understand, then why do I have to sell my SBD on an exchange? Who gets the backing vests then?

And thus the trusted oracles for the exchange rate control the creation of new money supply.

Quote from: sigmajin

In response to those rewards, steem are created and placed in the vesting fund. Those created steem are what backs SBD

So then why create initial supply of vests before the SBD are converted to STEEM? What purpose does that premature estimate serve? Surely coinmarketcap.com needs to account for the market cap in SP+STEEM+SBD any way, if they want accuracy.

Quote from: bacchist

The vesting fund is SP balances.

The vesting fund apparently also includes the backing for SBD.

Are liquid STEEM also backed by specially tagged vests, or are they accounted for separately? I realize it is just irrelevant backend semantics though, i.e. doesn't reflect on the math whether STEEM are named "STEEM" or "vests with a special tag".

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: smooth on August 09, 2016, 05:20:38 AM

That looks correct. In addition to being a programming issue, VESTS may be more comfortable for traditional accounting since the number of units held doesn't change except in response to specific events (power up, power down, receiving rewards).

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 05:07:24 AM

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t100336233z

Quote from: sigmajin

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

Another question?

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-bacchist-re-sigmajin-re-smooth-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t123101085z

Quote from: theoretical

When SBD is created, its initial backing is supplied by the post's reward STEEM. Any fall in the price of STEEM will result in a rise of the virtual supply (and conversely, any rise in the price of STEEM will result in a fall of the virtual supply).

Ah so the supply of vests is adjusted when the SD (aka SBD) are converted to STEEM.

But I don't understand, then why do I have to sell my SBD on an exchange? Who gets the backing vests then?

And thus the trusted oracles for the exchange rate control the creation of new money supply.

Quote from: sigmajin

In response to those rewards, steem are created and placed in the vesting fund. Those created steem are what backs SBD

So then why create initial supply of vests before the SBD are converted to STEEM? What purpose does that premature estimate serve? Surely coinmarketcap.com needs to account for the market cap in SP+STEEM+SBD any way, if they want accuracy.

Quote from: bacchist

The vesting fund is SP balances.

The vesting fund apparently also includes the backing for SBD.

Are liquid STEEM also backed by specially tagged vests, or are they accounted for separately? I realize it is just irrelevant backend semantics though, i.e. doesn't reflect on the math whether STEEM are named "STEEM" or "vests with a special tag".

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 08, 2016, 03:05:29 PM

The platform is named steemit Wink

Bands with crappy names: Beatles, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, The Who, Depeche Mode, The Cure....

You are a marketing neophyte. You continue to make numerous mistakes.

You're making an analogy between apple pie and baseball bats.

Usually the name of a band is not intended to implicitly describe the type of music the band creates, except perhaps in a very abstract and creative way (e.g. Smashing Pumpkins might make me think of punk rock). The band's music creates the emotional attachment and devotion, thus branding the name.

The name of a company, product, or service usually must convey what it does or is for (at least some connected meaning), as this is very important for viral spread and recall during viral mentions.

Steemit sounds like a porn site.

That is really, really bad. Again I refer you to the females who are stating how important it is that the site not be connotated with scams and negative things, in order for them to promote the site virally to their communities such as the one lady with 500 members in her cause oriented group.

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

When you get to nitpicking the name of a brand (unless it's Shitty McShitFace), then you are really scraping the barrel of valid concerns.

Sorry man but you've been completely off in left field during most of the recent discussion. I can't even understand what you are writing most of time (lately) and thus not replying. I don't mean to be disrespectful and maybe I am a literary dunce in your opinion because your text lately reads to me like gibberish (not referring to the post I am replying to). I was avoiding saying anything, but I guess it's better I inform you.

Quote from: generalizethis on August 09, 2016, 02:28:33 AM

Hell, McDonalds has a purple pile of poo named Grimace as part of their mascot team (would have loved sit in on that meeting, "Hey, Bob, it's a giant purple shit named Grimace--and we're selling food?"

Grimace is targeted to kids. It is cartoon stuff.

You need to remember to apply context.

Edit: even an abstract name such as Google, is derived or similar to ogle or goggle, which connects some meaning to searching or looking into. Even Apple had a meaning at the start. The logo was an apple with a BYTE in it.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: AlexGR on August 09, 2016, 04:21:16 AM

Who is the other larimer, what is his role, and does he have a nickname on steemit?

https://steemit.com/@stan

He has never had an officially-described role or title at Steemit afaik. Unofficially, I don' t know the relationship.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

That looks correct. In addition to being a programming issue, VESTS may be more comfortable for traditional accounting since the number of units held doesn't change except in response to specific events (power up, power down, receiving rewards).

Quote from: iamnotback on August 09, 2016, 05:07:24 AM

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t100336233z

Quote from: sigmajin

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

takingthis4

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 250

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: ?? on ??

Don't Let the Larimers Dump on You!

kinda real thing i guess Cheesy

i think the only question is when it turn out to be a scam because in my opinion it is really seem to be fishy when i tried using it

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Anyone (especially @smooth) feel free to inform or correct me:

Quote from: https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power#@anonymint/re-sigmajin-re-anonymint-who-pays-for-the-blogging-and-curation-rewards-part-1-steem-power-20160809t100336233z

Quote from: sigmajin

Just as a side note, i think my explanation is a bit easier to understand... and more accurate, as its not rooted in money supply theory, which is basically silly anyway.

https://steemit.com/interest/@sigmajin/understanding-the-steem-economic-system-vests-sbd-steem-dilution-interest-and-all-those-crazy-things

https://steemit.com/economics/@chiefjay/where-does-the-money-come-from-part-2-of-my-steem-economic-model

The second one is actually the better of the two, IMO, but ive been told the first one is easier

In my opinion, frankly the second blog is so convoluted and inundated with a overly verbose explanation of the unnecessary complexity of vests, that I just gave up reading it about halfway through. Sorry but IMO it is really bad. That is not the way to simplify explanations. I don't intend to offend you, and I just want to be honest with my reply. I am not downvoting you. No animosity is intended. We are trying to help each other and the community understand.

In my opinion, the first blog is better organized and has more concision making it easier to follow, yet still you introduce this afaics mathematically unnecessary complication of vests. Afaics, the understanding of vests is a programming issue on the backend and it is mathematically irrelevant w.r.t. to understanding the economic structure of Steem, which is why I never mention it as it will only make the explanation of the economic structure of the Steem system more obtuse.

Afaics, there appears to be a mathematical equivalence between my way of conceptualizing (and the UI's way of presenting) SP as units of restricted STEEM coupled with the STEEM being separate units of the money supply where the supply of STEEM is increased ~100% yearly, versus your explanation of SP as vests converted to STEEM units by a ratio which changes as supply of vests increases. Frankly I've never found yet a complete explanation of the way vests are accounted and programmed on the backend, which is another reason I don't discuss them. And I haven't studied the code to figure it out. And I didn't find your explanation of them to be complete and unambiguous. If you'd like to cite a more canonical resource on vests, I'd appreciate that.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Who is the other larimer, what is his role, and does he have a nickname on steemit?

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: AlexGR on August 08, 2016, 03:05:29 PM

The platform is named steemit Wink

Bands with crappy names: Beatles, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, The Who, Depeche Mode, The Cure....

When you get to nitpicking the name of a brand (unless it's Shitty McShitFace), then you are really scraping the barrel of valid concerns.

Hell, McDonalds has a purple pile of poo named Grimace as part of their mascot team (would have loved sit in on that meeting, "Hey, Bob, it's a giant purple shit named Grimace--and we're selling food?"

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

The platform is named steemit Wink

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: testz on July 23, 2016, 07:37:14 AM

What about this view: http://steempress.io/@anonymint

Neato. Power of an open blockchain (but in Steem's case which we aren't legally allowed to fork to remove the "pre"-mine).

Quote from: MWD64 on August 08, 2016, 03:27:00 AM

started a new thread here, it's kind of related but a different angle on it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1579135.new#new

Whoa. That is some strong dirt you have dug up on Jeff Berwick, Steemit's poster boy.

Edit: Steem is not an ideal name. It has so many possible bad connotations:

Pile of steeming shit.
Steam misspelling.
Steamit associated with got pissed off blowing steam out my ears.
Steeminions.
Streemit misspelling.
Can be thought to be a ripoff of branding of popular Steam gaming platform.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: amesterdamer on August 08, 2016, 08:51:03 AM

...3rd post as a money grab... ok the 1st post I full into in and great welcome, the 2nd post thanking the first one, was a classic move seen many time on steemit to drain a little more profit of the 1st wave. What I really found disturbing was the 3 post in 48h, not to add much more, but to write just some "things" and the drain continues. I'm not against him or anyone else, but look like people are against me because I speak what I think and what I feel (and I know I'm not the only one that has this opinion about what happen).

... how sometime's one has to take a bullet for the team to reach higher goals. (at the moment I've taken more than 1 bullet and still standing).

It is very clear to me that the killer app of crypto-currency and blockchains is:

cooperation

The overriding ideology that is driving the enthusiasm of the Steem concept is the hope that humanity can cooperate for a better result.

I finally honed/homed in on the key marketing concept that is going to make the concept sticky.

P.S. @amesterdamer to help us find our way to selflessness try to remember we are imperfect in our perspective at any given time. We need to coax towards understanding. I understand frustration. Also each person may come around to this concept of cooperation from a different perspective and for cooperation to work we have to be tolerant of diversity. For example, the Steem system is enriching a few whales who 90% sneaky mined or premined. So it isn't even entirely selfless from its roots. Let's find our way to our end goal. Along the way, there will be competitive interests. That is the way the world works. Let's be clever in finding our way to coax the world towards selflessness. I am even not 100% there yet. I am a pragmatic idealist who is also an anarchist-capitalist, not a communist thief. I will allow people their freedom to choose and compete, because nature requires it.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: smooth on August 08, 2016, 12:03:18 AM

It is quite clear to me the response rate there has literally zero to do with people not wanting competition for rewards.

I was at 20+ hours of not sleeping when I was discussing this yesterday. I was delirious. (Age 51, doing these long work sessions back-to-back over the past week or two, still fighting the remnants of auto-immune disease, etc)

I agree there is no sign of conscious desire to want to avoid promoting signups to mitigate competition for rewards.

I later clarified (to which you even conceded the possibility) there may not be a strong incentive to promote external signups, especially given any risk/cost to doing so.

Now tie that in with a SUBconscious (hindbrain) disincentive to avoid promoting signups to mitigate competition for rewards.

smooth you may lack exposure to the field of psychology and the impact of the subconscious mind.

I am not qualifying the effect and ranking it as a priority concern. I am just an idea person. I like to add all the ideas to my set of concepts to consider before I distill.

When I am very sleepy and can't communicate nor think as clearly, this may get lost in the shuffle of crossed signals.

Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 53. (Read 107064 times)