Topic: Steem vs Synereo, which one will lead the decentralized social media revolution? - page 2. (Read 7043 times)

https://steemit.com/@steemit/transfers

That is the account that collected the "sneaky-mine" coins (originally about 80%, but less now). It does not post, does not vote, and does not receive rewards. It's purposes are to serve as a source of coins to fund free accounts for new users, to sell coins on exchanges to fund development, and to serve as an asset of Steemit Inc, allowing the company to profit from the success of the platform. The first two of these obviously redistribute stake, and do so in a reasonably transparent way.

The R^2 weighting does not work the way you suggest. Yes, posts are R^2 weighted, but users are not. i.e. two users with N stake both voting on a post have about the same total voting power as a single user with 2N stake.

It does indeed lead to a narrower distribution of rewards with most going to a relatively few "hit" posts. That's a marketing decision in part (big payouts attract attention and interest even if most users don't get them), but something superlinear is necessary to prevent the obvious failure mode where people just vote for their own posts (but no one else does) in order to continue to gain a proportionate share of the rewards. The way it has worked out, the most successful posts have far more stake voting for them then any single user or even any small group of whales. You can't just vote to grab rewards and prevent dilution.

In practice, most of the rewards are going to successful and talented bloggers who have joined the site since launch. I expect that as the site grows and pulls from an even larger talent pool of posters and bloggers, the current ones may be pushed aside, at last to an extent, in favor of the greater talent and stronger celebrity status. Maybe that is a bad thing, since talent and celebrity is somewhat narrowly distributed, but in any case it isn't going back to large early stakeholders. We're all being diluted, and at a pretty good clip too.

Where can I view the holdings?

How can you rail against scams such as Dash instamine, and then you basically support a coin that is primarily held by Dan and other insiders (you apparently claiming at one point to be one of the larger 1% of supply holders) that doesn't have a mechanism for diluting whales and instead concentrates more and more tokens to the whales. So we can presume they are running trading bots on the exchanges driving the price by buying from themselves (or at least have the holdings to do so in the future), which is precisely what you told me to be wary of.

R² means if the insiders have 1000X the rep power of the minions, there would need to be 1 million minions before their voting could even begin to challenge the insiders. And the minions might not hold SP and instead hold regular tokens which are debased at 100% per annum, they would never likely challenge the insiders reputationally weighted stake.

Their chief math guy has admitted as I quoted that the R² is designed to fool those who have a risk seeking personality to strive for the $100 - $10,000 per post payouts, while in fact due to that math, most of them will only receive a couple of $ of payouts. Thus eventually they will lose the happy feeling they when started on the positive hope side of their risk seeking personality.

You don't build successful businesses by making users depressed. Facebook makes people happy. Reddit makes people engaged (because users were't recruited with high expectations of huge payouts, these users are contented with engagement). Steemit makes users blow steem out of their ears pissed as hell later (because the marketing lied to them thus attracting an insatiable demographic with higher expectations).

Perhaps they plan to try to transition some of this audience to Peertracks, which is apparently another pyramid scheme lie based around music. Instead of focusing on social experiences and matching music to fans, I think I remember reading that Peertracks will allow fans to become investors in a pyramid of the artist.

You are turning the s/w industry into lies and scams. I want nothing to do with you if you are going to on the one hand be so dogmatic even leading me entirely away from doing what Dan has done (I originally was talking ICOs and no no no don't you dare do anything but PoW distribution). I had more respect for you than this, that at least some consistency of your position.

I don't have a problem with Dan doing this. Everyone should be free. I just have a problem with feeling like I been jerked around, some people telling me to be idealistic, then telling me as long as you build adoption through lying to people's emotions, then that is positive.

I don't feel there is any consistency of anything. Everyone should do what ever in the hell they want.

But I don't think there is any way that Dan will be successful, because he doesn't love his users. These are real people. You can't abuse your customers and expect to build anything great. Facebook actually strives for user satisfaction, My gf loves facebook. She gets her daily happy social fix.

So Dan is giving users their risk taking gambling fix. Yeah I guess there is a market for that. I see that in the females who have blogged. They are risk takers.

Crypto is one big gambling fix and I doubt can't make the transition to mainstream software with these type of people at the helm, unless the world has become a gambling casino.

Steemit is taking money from new investors and redistributing it to those with the most rep power. And fooling bloggers to join by hyping payouts most of them will never receive. That doesn't sound to me like building a good long-term business model.

Bernie Madoff must be proud.

There is no question that insiders have absolute control now. They have said so, and it is obvious from the transparent holdings on the blockchain.

What the future holds, nobody really knows. Where you and I differ is that I don't believe I have the ability to predict the outcome of extremely complex systems with many people involved. That said, most new businesses fail, most cryptocurrencies fail, so objectively speaking the odds for Steem are not good. I'm willing to let it play out though, and see where it goes. Nothing else I've seen here has made even a remotely credible effort to reach a mainstream audience. Steem has at least done that, even if flawed, and even if it fails.

Because apparently Limewire was not purely open source and instead had a paid version and thus was a commercial entity that the US government could regulate more easily.

I actually do agree that it is difficult to make open source software that facilitates copyright infringement, because it means users have a difficult time finding hosts to run this s/w on. I actually argued against the viability of the decentralized file systems on this basis, which was one of my complaints about the design of Synereo.

But even if you do something about this, it doesn't require that the power to censor content also empowers that person to amass as many tokens as they want by using their superior rep power to earn more tokens than everyone else.

Also the structure of the system should be that the user's s/w is in control, not some global setting on a global block chain.

My idea was to offer users a default content providers that censor (but have no ability to amass advantages in tokens which is my major complaint against what Dan has apparently done), but users are in control of the s/w they run, so they can swap out any content providers they choose if they are savvy enough. Making the default choices compliant with the RIAA means you are less likely to have problems. Meaning only savvy users change the defaults and they have to go find the s/w on other Githubs.

Edit: but if the protocol is open source, you can't stop others from offering variants of the s/w to users. That was also part of my strategy. Decentralize the sources of the s/w.

I don't condone theft of copyrighted material. Artists and creators should be paid fairly. If we steer clear of non-indie music and get indie creators into the concept of digital payments bypassing the major labels, then we can solve that legal problem. They may be attempting to do that with Peertracks and I also had an idea for that which may or may not have some similarities to Peertracks. But any way, I am working on more fundamental issues right now to fix PoW without resorting to DPoS which have stated is centralized and suffers scaling issues (e.g. anti-DDoS duplication costs if there are 100s of nodes). I think Dan is probably keeping the number of delegates low to keep these costs down or maybe they are not really prepared for DDoS attack or maybe all the nodes are controlled by Dan and he is reusing the same anti-DDoS for all his nodes. Again problem is DPoS is centralized.

Btw I don't think you can make Peertracks work as well as what I designed, because DPoS can't really do real-time microtractions at that volume. That is why Dan had to make the design of Steemit non-ideal. He discusses that in the white paper. I have solved that technical block chain problem.

I'm not sure that I want to invest in something that is going to go the way of the Silk Road. Also, I should be extra careful when I click on any links posted on Steemit, because I could end up with some Trojan from hell on my rig.


Then why did Limewire have to pull back? That was a P2P network, wasn't it?

In a properly design decentralized network such as my design for JAMBOX (and possibly also Synereo uses the correct design), the content is never held any any central repository and there is no computer in charge of the content. The content flows from user-to-user's node according to their own filter, and so users determine what they store, transmit, and view. Thus copyright compliance falls to the users.

Dan doesn't understand decentralization apparently.

I think Stereo would be a better name than Synereo. Coincidentally, my autocorrect changes Synereo to Stereo.

How is Steemit going to deal with people posting copyrighted material and material that is illegal? Can't the people who run the webpage be held totally liable, civilly and criminally?

No you can't. You have a very low math IQ:

Who goes to page 1001 if the first 1000 pages are supposed to have better value due to curation. Besides Dan can change the UI any time he wants to. And besides, do I click 1000 or 1001 or 599? Point is I am not going to read 1000 pages of blog posts.

Any way you are arguing at the fringes and have already lost the key point of the debate.

Steemit is not a decentralized social network.

Dan relegating content to page 1001 of the listings is censored.

In a correct design of a decentralized social network, no person has the power to do that to content globally. Only each user can filter content with their own individual preferences that determine rep power for those they friend.

Steemit is a Frankenstein chain and everyone should disown it immediately if they have any ethics for decentralization goals.

I repeat:

He apparently has enough rep power to make it sink to the last page of the archive and be effectively unseen?

In my design of a decentralized social network (and I think perhaps similarly for Synereo), no person has global rep power that can be used to control individual filters on content. Instead each user sets their own priorities on what content they see.

Dan seems to be allergic to the word decentralized even though he uses that word, none of his designs actually respect the concept. DPoS also disrespects decentralization.

So who is claiming this is a decentralized social network for the minions?

This is worse than Facebook. We hand power from Suckerberg who only owns a minority share to @dantheman who owns a majority share.

If we just wanted a permissioned social network then we don't need a block chain for that.

What is the innovation here  

 

I am considering doing this once I am done re-reading the white paper and make sure I understand the specifics of how this could or could not be gamed. Because I also have access to 1000 of people I could Sybil attack this with, so I am looking at my options now, because CoinHoarder pissed me off.

I am beginning to think that Dan has rigged this such that it is impossible for the minions to ever gain enough rep power to game the system. He has I think retained the control in his own hands. A permissioned block chain. That is what I would expect from him.

If that is the case, then I another bit of my respect for smooth will die because of his involvement in this scheme. But I need to confirm first the details...I understand making a profit but given how moralistic he has been about coins and knowing he is smart enough to have studied the details, then he should have been pointing out these matters long ago but apparently didn't because he was vested.

I think you would gain instant access to all information from Dan himself if you opened a steemit thread and it would be really intresting.

That is the curation rewards paid to those who vote, not the payout reward for those who post was voted for. It doesn't change the R² quadratic reward scheme which is employed for both rewards (the curation is proposed to use a different modeling math, but still apparently roughly quadratic although I haven't yet digested the differential equations and such just taking his summary at face value).

So this means if someone has 10 times the rep power, then it requires 100 votes from the minions to equal that one vote both in terms of payout to whom was voted for and curation reward for those who voted.

At 100 times the rep power, then it require 10,000 minions. At 1000 rep power, then it requires 1 million minions.

So essentially Dan has probably handed himself and a few other insiders complete financial control over the reward system.

Does anyone know where we can view the distribution of the rep power?

I might be wrong in this but I think that there were some changes in the voting system, https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/changes-to-curation-reward-allocation I don't even know if this is the most updated version

Dan specifically designed it to create this pyramid gambling pyschology effect:


This purposefully fooling the users and will create a burnout effect once they realize their experience has been contrary to their emotional/motivational reason for joining.

Expect euphoria to change to depression and resentment. Expect users to look for ways to cheat and get what they expected.

Dan is using a variant of gamification in a very deleterious and unsustainable way.