You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: It has come to my attention that I need to explain things a little more...and this is better!
I think this is a pretty clever summation. I wonder how making the rewards pool private property would change the distribution? If the witnesses would forgo their rewards (instead of keeping them) then how would witnesses choose to distribute them? Or is that not your point, and how they choose to distribute them or not, is simply the "free market?" Idk, this seems like a toughy. ;)
Oh, the pretty pictures do help by the way! lol
MMMmmmmm......I dunno....I DO know without property being the consideration when writing code - it will not stand .... (no concept property, no ethics).
Correct me if I still don't understand completely. Most crypto projects tout the fact that they are open source, meaning those who are capable and willing, can contribute and see how exactly the source code works. NEO/BTC etc....Closed source (private property) are your Microsoft's/Apple/IBM's.
When writing code with the intention of making it private, you become no longer "open source". Is this what you mean?
It might be...if I understood what you meant..lol
I mean that the rewards pool as it stands, is no ones property - therefore taking it - however you can - is acceptable.
Without an ethical code in the system (code) there are no ethics.
There can be no theft, or deception, or cheating....these are ethics.
IF the reward pool belongs to no one -(which I think is correct) then any actions becomes acceptable - to take a slice, there is no 'right, wrong, good bad' - just whatever you can get, however you can get it...
Law of the jungle is not a structure that will endure - except as a financial instrument to make profit of price action.
In the 'new world' structure - this is an incorrect model - this is exactly what we are all railing against...Non ethical structures.
I think it's a very fine line. Not that it's not worth examining. Just seems difficult to unwind it all. I don't necessarily think that making the reward pool privately distributed makes it "closed source" anyway.
I' not saying we don't leave it as it is - I'm saying we have to understand what it is we are dealing with.
....it'll only end in tears if we don't..lol
...the free market concept is wrong. You need to own things to buy and sell.
This is more akin to a land grab or gold rush (every day)
Still makes me wonder how the witnesses "pay their bills" in a model like this. Unless they just up-vote their own content and comments constantly. I've never really considered what the economic model on Steemit is. I'd say it's about time! Thx for the running start ;)
Me neither.... until I did my 'refresher thinking' for those few days when I was offline.
the steem reward pool belongs to no one. (until 7 days later)
People use the rewards pool for various actions prior to distribution.
People use property that is not theirs, to profit.
A 7 day cycle gold rush, and not a function of free markets.
(Free markets = a free exchange of your property, for good or services. Steem is not this - in regards to the rewards pool).
Dan Larimer is a fervent libertarian too...for shame! I thing he has ADD additionally.