Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 58. (Read 107064 times)

Here is my eye witness account of what I believe happened on BitFinex and why they're lying about being hacked:

https://steemit.com/news/@r0achtheunsavory/bitfinex-is-lying-about-the-hack-and-i-can-tell-you-exactly-what-likely-happened

Repackaging, now--

https://steemit.com/steemit/@generalizethis/what-fight-club-can-teach-us-about-social-networks

Probably buggy behavior, I've noticed it too with one of my comments - it was hidden. I post it, I go down to see if its there and it's missing. I click reload, still not there.

How is this even possible? you have a good reputation and noone downvoted your post, sounds more than a bug than anything else.  You and everyone else are free to offer the alternative to steemit to the masses, the "uncensored" spamycrapysteemit.com that's why they opensourced the steemit.com code, so stop talking about "censorship", everything stays in the blockchain. 



I highly doubt that you will ever create/release anything, but it's a promise I can give you.

My comment post was hidden on r0ach's blog until I upvoted myself. So I've been downvoted before, thus my comments should be hidden   The entire value of social networks is in the social interaction. I believe Dan will destroy that because he doesn't have a fucking clue as to what he is doing in the sense of social network game theory. He will create censorship, because that is the way his thought process (and yours too apparently) approaches the issue.

I have no financial incentive to create a Steemit clone, as Steem doesn't pay Steemit clones anything. I have a financial incentive to create a Steem clone, but it can't be forked.


I already have a solution and it is individualized relevance. I already wrote about that. I mean I haven't yet written down every detail and crossed all the 't's and dotted all the 'i's yet. I'll want to vet my design in great detail before I will confidently state I have resolved the issue with certainty.


Perfect. Promise me you will never invest early in anything I create? It wouldn't be as sweet for me if you profit off when I kick your ass.

In my recent discussion with smooth about scaling, my point is that somebody has to pay for the scaling. So that design which scales 100 times more efficiently, may end up making a huge difference in the economics of the site, since users need to expend a resource in order to pay for their activity on the system, else you have to take this resource out of "profit" of the system.

Smooth was I presume thinking that I was saying that a given design could not scale physically, i.e. that it would exhaust the practical physical resources on earth or available in data centers. My point was about the relative cost of scaling. I don't yet know whether this is a significant enough cost to make it a priority issue.

You are free to believe that someone who has been downvoted to oblivion in the past has the "right" to have his posts visible to everyone, so please make an alternative to steemit.com(now that they opensourced the code) and offer to the "uneducated masses" the oportunity to view all those "quality"/crapy/spamy posts that "evil" Dan is hiding from them!

But maybe not, you stated that you want to compete with steem not steemit, lol. But again you haven't even figured out how to deal with spam, although you already made some steps to find a good name, lol this is all that maters, a good name, every shitcoin has a good name.  Btw what happened to your other project? weren't you asking for a good name some time ago too? It was supposed to solve a lot of "problems" too and blah... blah... blah... blah...

I'm sick and tired of your BS.
I will say it again, jealously is a bad advisor!

What do you think my assumption is?

Btw, you think I make false assumptions because you do not comprehend what I was thinking. So the false assumption was yours. I prefer to be cryptic than expend all of my time correcting every person's misconception of what I think. I've had roughly two (or was it 3?) errors in this thread about analyzing the math (and game theory) of of the STEEM/SP split, which I promptly admitted/corrected. Any other false assumptions you are thinking of are probably yours. You are welcome to enumerate and I will respond.


I did not write "0 votes". I wrote "has no negative votes". Please learn to focus on minute details. Programming and algorithms are finely detailed.


If this is your assumption, you are going to be wearing an asshat soon.

I am the real deal, and eventually you will be forced to realize it. But you can keep telling yourself these lies if you wish.

Look I don't intend to create animosity with you, but if you are going to slobber your sloppiness and fling it at me, projecting your errors in reading comprehension and understanding as false accusations of myself making assumptions, then of course there will be strife. I'll respect you when you stop just assuming I am jealous or ignorant, and come to realize who I am. But of course, you are predisposed to think of me the way you do. So the only resolution of this is when I kick Steem's ass.

Enough words already! Action. So go ahead making your assumptions. I will not have time to refute them. Payback will come from action, not words.

Do you think that this new "assumption" of yours(you make "false" assumptions all the time) makes any sense? afaik 0 votes doesn't mean that your post has no downvotes, it means you have an equal amount of upvotes and downvotes.  
[edit: Im talking about hidden posts]
[edit 2: it seems that now all upvotes and downvotes are added to the total number]
Keep "assuming" and "guesing", you are not just short sighted, you are totaly blind!

Jealously is a bad advisor  

Well it seems to go further than the former greyed out effect in that it is hiding comments that have no negative votes. This appears to be the new reputation system Dan recently blogged about.

I haven't completely sorted out how I will deal with spam, but I don't think the way Dan is headed here is correct. But I encourage him to continue!   I pray "they" (whales? Or ned?) give Dan the keys and let him run wild with "improvements". Perfect.

Edit: one of the key breakthroughs in my design is I don't use stake-weighting to bandwidth limit. Instead I use a depleteable resource of the user (not proof-of-work as the attacker can do this more efficiently than the mobile user), yet this doesn't reduce their balance. There are some significant advantages over stake weighting and I think I have invented something totally new to crypto. I will have several innovations that are totally new.

You can click the "Show" button at the end of the page to see them, imo it's much better this way than having "greyed" comments all over the place, the number seems to be some kind of reputation, don't know details

The timing aspect of the voting algorithm is not entirely clear to me (is it to anyone?). I think more or less if the whales vote a dozen or more times per day, then the full weight of their stake is determing the highest rewarded posts by an order-of-magnitude or two (the quadratic weighting of voted stake weighted to rewards and the vortex of posts that are high ranked become more high ranked because seen more amplifies this effect).

Thus I think it doesn't take much effort on the part of the whales to dominate the content relevance.

If the whales have too much influence over the content, then the site lacks degrees-of-freedom and can only become the site that the whales want it to be. But communities are much more diverse than that, if you want to bring in people from the outside of the limited view of the world that the 50 whales possess.

Edit: note afaics that removing the time and quadratic weighting is impossible for Steem, because as I explained upthread, it would allow voters to profitably vote for themselves always. I was only able to solve this by totally changing the design of how STEEM POWER are structured. This is another reason my confidence is very high that I can compete and beat Steem. (my doubts are due to being so far behind on implementation and not being 80% perfect health yet more like 66.6% health, but hopefully I will team up with other(s) soon)

Some useful analysis for me, so I upvoted.

Have you noticed they are now hiding comments entirely that don't have an upvote or something (some new number in parenthesis next to each username)

smooth you might be encouraged to read that some ladies say they want to learn about CC and blockchains and that being another interest motivating joining Steem:

https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@pixielolz/society-says-that-you-re-supposed-to-introduce-yourself-so-here-i-am-introducing-myself-#@anonymint/re-pixielolz-society-says-that-you-re-supposed-to-introduce-yourself-so-here-i-am-introducing-myself--20160731t000356858z

It makes sense that Dan would conflate the blockchain consensus algorithm with the social networking relevance function, because in my opinion Dan is whacko (that doesn't mean he and his cohorts aren't highly productive coders).

I am employing the same reasoning as to why there is no medium-term investment option for speculators, why they launched with an 80 - 90% stealth "pre"-mine, and why that forces them to not allow any forking of the Steem blockchain.

Even I'd probably use the same reasoning to explain bizarre technical design choices such as not allowing enough bytes for the balances, forcing a chaotic forward stock split every 3 years (all so the transaction size can be 30 bytes instead of perhaps 48 bytes as a form of premature optimization).

Per my prior post that explained why I decided not to work with them (and instead to try to compete with them), it is because "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

There are 50 whales with very strong vested interests. I believe politics will make it impossible to change certain key aspects of the design. Maybe they can change the voting reward algorithm at some point, but the "pre"-mine they will never agree to undo and thus the forking of Steem they can't allow any time soon. Ditto the 50% yearly (150% for next months) debasement of STEEM seems to be impossible for them to change.

Dozens could influence the type of materials people chase in writing and in curating rewards--on the flip side of that, do rewards get dissipated enough to where minnows are determining the content? Yes, with enough time, they should--but if you look at Shelby's stats (and yes, that prompted my 3 cent strategy critique) you'll see that those social networks took two years of flat growth before they got rolling (his observation was the trajectory is weird--though steemit might be a black swan and no one will see what's coming--note instagram's an exception in his chart).

ATM: in an election year, the obvious liberal money is pushing a very motivated and very wealthy sector out of the conversation (if I don't see NRA, right-to-life, or build a wall posts, I know that the discussion is lopsided and I know that the guys running the show are missing the dollars these debates create (or am I the only one who gets how politics motivates action?).

It's "divide and conquer," not "put up a divider and try to win Hillary an election."

Are the top SP accounts actively curating a lot of articles (shooting hundreds of upvotes per day) or are we just theorizing that they are?

I think the problem shelby is identifying is that without some distance from the process, the investors influence the direction politically and socially, and while they may have good intentions, they may come out as the reverse fox news of social media, but with travel blobs and tech write ups as social content.

Editors and moderators, who get fair and equal time, can't come fast enough--and the whales should hand them the reigns in the form of meaningful voting power.

It kinda makes sense when you take into account that proof of stake is inherently just a private company issuing shares of itself, so that voting dynamic just mirrors the function of proof of stake where whale takes all.  Whoever owns the stake controls the whole thing, so they control voting by default no matter what.

Sean Parker, but reading Shelby's latest, I kind of want to reference Leroy Jenkins (tomorrow maybe I can nail the fundamental strategy issues and make it more palatable.

@Shelby, can I reference your stat post in the revision? I think that perspective is an eye opener and shouldn't be ignored.

Put up new BTC & Ethereum market analysis.  It's better than most the market analysis people have been putting up on Steemit (imo at least)

The r0ach report vol 2: Bitcoin happenings & Ethereum rough consensus attack

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-2-bitcoin-happenings-and-ethereum-rough-consensus-attack