Topic: Steem pyramid scheme revealed - page 8. (Read 107034 times)
Steem keeps going down and down and no one is buying it. Why would they? I think that steem is useless now. You are just funding authors but the popular ones get the most money. It does not matter what you write...
Who's another larimer, what is his part, and does he possess a nickname on steemit?
This thread was old, if this are all true why does steem still in the crypto currency world?
80% of steem owned by the creators? did someone verify that? this would really be the end for that coin...
Nothing to verify, they admitted it. There is dilution and dumping to fund expenses by the team so it is probably a lot lower than that now, although realistically most claims about distribution (on all coins that make such claims) are nonsense since you can't tell who actually owns or controls which accounts/addresses.
80% of steem owned by the creators? did someone verify that? this would really be the end for that coin...
Wow, actually I always had a pretty good impression of Steem, but this whole thread is frightening...
I had previously equivocated a bit on whether Steem is good or bad. Hope you read that post.
Also I added some more explanation to my recent blog, which I think will help neophytes better understand the issues with consortium blockchains. Hope you read that as well.
Wow, actually I always had a pretty good impression of Steem, but this whole thread is frightening...
The sad thing is if Steem could actually invest $1000 into a fresh website design that didn't look like it was made in India in 1999, then they could have the potential to actually succeed. At this point only cryptocurrency enthusiasts use the platform and I cannot see that changing in the near future.
The sad thing is if Steem could actually invest $1000 into a fresh website design that didn't look like it was made in India in 1999, then they could have the potential to actually succeed. At this point only cryptocurrency enthusiasts use the platform and I cannot see that changing in the near future.
And that may be great for those with nothing better to do, but doing an hour of driving Uber vs and hour of writing content for steem, Uber pays more.
For those with faithful followings, they can take their sheep to each and every platform. Like most social media monetization is all about creating a following. Not every person on the earth is going to experience success on steem, and thus there is frustration (which you have labeled FUD).
For those with faithful followings, they can take their sheep to each and every platform. Like most social media monetization is all about creating a following. Not every person on the earth is going to experience success on steem, and thus there is frustration (which you have labeled FUD).
Sir that is an excellent point. I really appreciate that dose of reality.
Whatever but holding 80% with them is too much.It is hard to earn steem now.Its because Steemit was designed for early adopters, not a fair distribution.Its hard for a newbie to earn with an excellent post while an early member can easily get hundreds with a shitty old post.
it's because their vote system. need invest more than 10k to get 1$ upvote. 20$ per day. 600$ per month. this is game for big playerYou don't need to invest anything. There are plenty of dolphins and whales who upvote good content and you get paid for it.
I just started looking at it a few weeks ago. None of this thread really makes sense and seems like a bunch of people spreading FUD.
It looks like it has its own hangup Iguess in that they pre-minded it. But I went and looked through a bunch of stuff and see a huge community prospering. So.... Don't buy any steem then! Just ust the platform and earn it.
Easy!
And that may be great for those with nothing better to do, but doing an hour of driving Uber vs and hour of writing content for steem, Uber pays more.
For those with faithful followings, they can take their sheep to each and every platform. Like most social media monetization is all about creating a following. Not every person on the earth is going to experience success on steem, and thus there is frustration (which you have labeled FUD).
Did anybody understand my blog? I have no feedback from any of you other than 18 upvotes before @chryspano censored it from Steemit’s viewers as explained in my prior post.
Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory.
Is no one here interested in Steem any more?
Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory.
Is no one here interested in Steem any more?
Hello, I didnt get why you need only 33% to shutdown the blockchain.
Thanks for asking. I realize that math result is non-intuitive and difficult for a layman to believe.
See the “Math of liveness & safety” section of my blog. Study the explanation of the math that is quoted from my white paper.
It is because over the overlap of 2 elections for the relative pairing of two blocks, and the fact that there are N delegates who vote yet the quorum size must be T. We then solve for a mathematical relationship between T and N by equating the two expressions, because we have another requirement that the excess of N - T be equal to the aforementioned overlap 2T - N - 1.
The point is that it is the need for the ability to objectively prove the relationship between any pairings of block elections in the case that everything is relative because all actors are untrusted and the network propagation order is indeterminant (which relates back to the oft-cited FLP impossibility theorem which is mentioned in more detail in my yet unpublished white paper). This is why mathematically 33% can halt the blockchain, if we care about there existing an objective consensus (i.e. safety and consistency) and not just an unbounded number of subjective competing forks (i.e. double-spends and chaos). Of course a boastful, overeager FOMO-bag seller like Dan would claim this is incredulous, because Dan is apparently ignorant of the math and does not have his priorities on being expert on the research. I find it incredulous that Block.one raised ~$500 million thus far and apparently can’t even be bothered to hire some researchers to teach them about their technological weaknesses.
It is all in the math. I know it is non-intuitive but this result is from the 1980s (although the way I have derived it and explained the well known result may be my own unique insight). Sheesh and Dan is not even aware of it.
Realize the 33% liveness threshold (where 33% can shutdown the forward progress of the blockchain) only applies for an elected set of delegates and not to proof-of-work.
Did anybody understand my blog? I have no feedback from any of you other than 18 upvotes before @chryspano censored it from Steemit’s viewers as explained in my prior post.
Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory.
Is no one here interested in Steem any more?
Was the math of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus more comprehensible the way I explained it? I had edited what I had from my white paper to make it a bit more explanatory.
Is no one here interested in Steem any more?
Some math and analysis of some of the flaws in Dan's DPoS:
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale (Archived: http://archive.is/zLuR0)
Alternative link: https://busy.org/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale
Clearly you can see that Dan is not qualified to be as vaunted as a blockchain expert as some people may think.
UPDATE: We have @chryspano a whale-dolphin at Steem abusing the downvoting feature to censor the images and my entire blog post at Steem is now hidden (so much for the power of decentralization when the blockchain is overlorded by whales). Note the busy.org rendering of my blog page is still intact as that site apparently doesn’t enforce Steemit’s whale-controlled censorship.
https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale (Archived: http://archive.is/zLuR0)
Alternative link: https://busy.org/blockchain/@anonymint/consortium-blockchains-e-g-dpos-and-tendermint-can-t-internet-scale
Clearly you can see that Dan is not qualified to be as vaunted as a blockchain expert as some people may think.
UPDATE: We have @chryspano a whale-dolphin at Steem abusing the downvoting feature to censor the images and my entire blog post at Steem is now hidden (so much for the power of decentralization when the blockchain is overlorded by whales). Note the busy.org rendering of my blog page is still intact as that site apparently doesn’t enforce Steemit’s whale-controlled censorship.
Steem has done some interesting things. I am not accusing it of being a total scam.
My point (in addition to the weakness of DPoS) is simply that structure of rewarding content creators and app developers is not objective and is up to the whims of a few dozen whales. And the whales who are not conscientious could be instead awarding the communities’ minted tokens to themselves via blogging sockpuppets and/or kickbacks.
I do not have good confidence that if I as a blogger or app developer and invest my effort and resources to produce blogs, build a following, and make apps for the Steem blockchain, that I will be rewarded in the long-term. Because I perceive based on my interactions with some of the whales, that the have highly leftist skewed ideology. Yet their actions are likely quite selfish as hidden behind the curtain of sockpuppets and nepotism.
This is a lack of permissionless and trustless quality that we need for decentralization to take hold and grow.
If they’re going to reward from a collectivized pot of tokens, then at least remove as much subjectivity as possible, so the everyone would have confidence to work for the ecosystem.
Subjective voting from collectivized debasement of the money supply is inherently and insolubly flawed. I wrote a blog about it last year on Steemit explaining the logic for why such voting can never be fair and must be non-linearly (non-proportional even to their whale-size share of the money supply) skewed towards the whales else it can be gamed.
So if you want to fix Steem, you have to first discard the voting from collectivized debasement of the money supply.
Seriously Steemians, why would anyone work for the Steem ecosystem?
I really do not see why any one would. It is purely a speculative vehicle and circle-jerk or scheme for whales.
I am positive because the idea is based on a solid concept.
Disagree. The only thing solid was that enough speculators could be fooled by the pump enabling the whales to cash out several $millions.
We bystanders were able to get some crumbs. I got about $6500 out of it, so I am grateful because I would have been entirely depleted of funds by now otherwise. Steem funded me to fight on longer. So I am very grateful. But that doesn't mean I should lie about the reality I see. All of my blogging activity on Steem was sincere.
Voting and perpetual rewards are 2 of the several fatal flaws.
Steem did point the way towards possible designs that could scale and be successful. It was a valid experiment that advanced our thinking.
Some more thoughts about Dan, Steem voting, and the DPoS decentralized ledger:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23311260
My point (in addition to the weakness of DPoS) is simply that structure of rewarding content creators and app developers is not objective and is up to the whims of a few dozen whales. And the whales who are not conscientious could be instead awarding the communities’ minted tokens to themselves via blogging sockpuppets and/or kickbacks.
I do not have good confidence that if I as a blogger or app developer and invest my effort and resources to produce blogs, build a following, and make apps for the Steem blockchain, that I will be rewarded in the long-term. Because I perceive based on my interactions with some of the whales, that the have highly leftist skewed ideology. Yet their actions are likely quite selfish as hidden behind the curtain of sockpuppets and nepotism.
This is a lack of permissionless and trustless quality that we need for decentralization to take hold and grow.
If they’re going to reward from a collectivized pot of tokens, then at least remove as much subjectivity as possible, so the everyone would have confidence to work for the ecosystem.
Subjective voting from collectivized debasement of the money supply is inherently and insolubly flawed. I wrote a blog about it last year on Steemit explaining the logic for why such voting can never be fair and must be non-linearly (non-proportional even to their whale-size share of the money supply) skewed towards the whales else it can be gamed.
So if you want to fix Steem, you have to first discard the voting from collectivized debasement of the money supply.
Seriously Steemians, why would anyone work for the Steem ecosystem?
I really do not see why any one would. It is purely a speculative vehicle and circle-jerk or scheme for whales.
And then he began to slip down that slippery slope of rationalizing collectivistic clusterfucks (it is interesting because it somewhat parallels the decline I went through after I left the USA and started rationalizing various mistakes in judgement I made because underlying I was still so angry about being a slave in my home country due to an immigrant wife I stupidly brought to the USA):
I do not think anybody is refuting that Dan has created blockchains and accomplished a significant amount of development work. I certainly have never stated otherwise.
Btw Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working as Paul Sztorc explained, but Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.
Quote from: https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@dantheman/daniel-larimer--co-founder-of-bitshares-steemit
I also learned that my capitalist mindset was too short-sighted. I began to see how building a community around the selfish motives of earning income by charging fees on transactions limited adoption. I learned that "inflation" isn't theft if it is done to compensate those who bring value. I learned that true theft is expecting people to work for free without getting a share in the product. This maturing perspective caused me to diverge from many of people who were originally attracted to BitShares.
I do not think anybody is refuting that Dan has created blockchains and accomplished a significant amount of development work. I certainly have never stated otherwise.
Btw Daniel admitted that Bitshares governance was not working as Paul Sztorc explained, but Dan claims Steem solved decentralized budgeting but I have pointed out it is mathematically impossible that it did or could.
The liquidity factor is also negligible in those terms, where you are willing to invest for years because you view the prospects are very good. (Take AlexGR for example, he seems reasonably positive about it longer term, and likely doesn't care that he has to be locked in for at last 1-2 years.)
I am positive because the idea is based on a solid concept.
Disagree. The only thing solid was that enough speculators could be fooled by the pump enabling the whales to cash out several $millions.
We bystanders were able to get some crumbs. I got about $6500 out of it, so I am grateful because I would have been entirely depleted of funds by now otherwise. Steem funded me to fight on longer. So I am very grateful. But that doesn't mean I should lie about the reality I see. All of my blogging activity on Steem was sincere.
- reward scaling (bloggers increase necessitates marketcap increase to keep rewards stable). This is a major issue that I can't see getting fixed without external revenues.
Voting and perpetual rewards are 2 of the several fatal flaws.
Steem did point the way towards possible designs that could scale and be successful. It was a valid experiment that advanced our thinking.
Some more thoughts about Dan, Steem voting, and the DPoS decentralized ledger:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23311260
I think steem is a scam for sure, I can't withdraw my earnings there, and others can hardly do it too. Never invest in Dan's project, BTS, STEEM, EOS. You will lose money.
I was going to invest to it too. Not much, but anyway thank you.
I am so lucky to read this thread. I planned to buy some Steem this week.
Thanks all
Thanks all
The word scam has been continuously used freely the past couple of weeks now. Steem might be a scam, but they're worse and obvious scam coins out there 
Makes sense... like EOS is a scam... 1 year ICO saving ETH 
Jump to: