Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 60. (Read 107058 times)

Ah well, you can't have everything. There are 3 tokens and you know one of them is debased a lot, the other is protected significantly and the other is giving you 10% interest. If you want upside potential, then you'll either trade it when low, or ride the fluctuations in the SD/STEEM markets (selling SDs when 1 or above, buying below 0.9 / 0.8, etc).

The person who literally is an expert on that (with a decade of experience developing databases for SSDs), said that particular FUD from an extremely shady competitor was "full of shit" (direct quote). (I also refuted it separately by measuring that routine laptop use generates SSD write volume that vastly dwarfs Monero's). In fact, he replied to you specifically in detail as to why your inexpert concern trolling on the matter was displaying ignorance. So why are you repeating it?

Anyway that is off topic to Steem. The blockchain can clearly scale to orders of magnitude more than current usage. Whether it runs into problems at some point is an issue, but not one for the short term, even with fairly rapid growth.

That is not investment in Steem. There is no upside ROI for the investor coming from speculation about Steem by investing in Steem dollars which are pegged to the US dollar.

Eh? They can convert STEEM => SDs => STEEM => SDs, as they see fit. SDs will even give them 10% interest.

With enough capital, the web server can be scaled. You could read about some of the things Facebook had to develop in order to scale out.

But the devil in the details in terms of costs. A certain incorrect design decision could lead to 10 or even 100 times higher costs for the (database) servers. And that is what I am referring to.

The extra reason my point is so salient, is because afaik there is no funding for the webserver at all. Steemit.com is paying for it out of their "pre"-mine. So if the serving is 100 times more costly we are all paying for it (less funding for signups, etc).

Also scaling up to 100 million users requires special expertise. If your design is 100 times worse than it could be, they will hit their headroom sooner, putting pressure on their ability to source the expertise and figure it all out while at the same time being slammed with the exponential growth.

It is not an issue of it can't scale assuming all other factors are irrelevant. My point was about design decisions putting them behind in a race with a competitor which can scale faster, easier, and less costly.

Note I haven't evaluated their design in detail, so it is possible that my generalized assumptions have some flaw due to some detail I am unaware of. But generally speaking, what I wrote about Websockets vs. REST is the correct intuition. And I have some specific ideas in mind of how the content can be optimized in the REST case that impacts the database load by perhaps orders-of-magnitude (will know more as I dig into details of coding it).


For blockchain scaling they have at least the issue of transactions per second and DPoS's issues there.

Also they might have issues with the database employed by the witnesses that may be impacted by the decision to allow so many real-time updates to pre-existing data. Data fragmentation issues, etc..

Remember that Monero slams SSDs so I am not so confident (until you inform me otherwise) that you all are highly expert on this point. (not to say that I am either but I am thinking about the issues)

Front end including the web server. You are still incorrect.


It is a problem if a competitor starts to grow at the 100 times faster rate that Ello did. In a month, Steemit's first mover advantage would already been irrelevant.