You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Normie Talk - HF21 Explained (SPS + EIP) What it is and what happens next

in #normietalk • 6 years ago

My brief response:

How to unpack this gently, as I've confronted you previously on a post regarding how steem is like LinkedIn regarding this and you avoided or did not conclude the discussion.

We spoke for a very long time, comment after comment. It seemed that the conversation was only going to remain at an impasse. You simply do not agree with me and nothing I say would convince you, and while I try to be someone that can be convinced, I never found anything you have said to me convincing. Not meaning to be rude, but all I see your writing style to be is spin.

It appears to me that all you aim to do is reduce my point by spitting nonsense over top of it rather than making any constructive suggestions or pointing out the WHY something can't work. Perhaps its not intentional and just how your mind thinks, but I find your logic more of a twisting of my point rather than a valid argument against what I said.

There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me, but your style of response to my expressions do not intrigue me into responding to you.

But here is my general response to your comment:

Youtube is full of people complaining about Patreon censorship. What censorship? The cryptocurrency world is full of people pointing out how Youtube and other platforms de-monetize people. In the eyes of many people and not just me, de-monetization is a form of censorship. You disagree, cool, but you are not disagreeing with me but with many many many people that are angry about it.

Don't want to call it censorship? Cool, then don't. I will, I won't stop calling it that. But we can in this conversation call it de-monetization. That's a bad word in the eyes of many people as well, the very thing the banks are beginning to do to businesses they disagree with.

Call it de-monetization or whatever you want. Its still a bad thing and contrary to the idea of crypto.

Hopefully I did not offend, but this is what I have to say in response to your comment. And I'd rather not get involved in another reply storm. We disagree.

6 years ago in #normietalk by
$0.00
    Reply 8
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago (edited)

    We spoke for a very long time, comment after comment. It seemed that the conversation was only going to remain at an impasse. You simply do not agree with me and nothing I say would convince you, and while I try to be someone that can be convinced, I never found anything you have said to me convincing. Not meaning to be rude, but all I see your writing style to be is spin.

    It appears to me that all you aim to do is reduce my point by spitting nonsense over top of it rather than making any constructive suggestions or pointing out the WHY something can't work. Perhaps its not intentional and just how your mind thinks, but I find your logic more of a twisting of my point rather than a valid argument against what I said.

    There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me, but your style of response to my expressions do not intrigue me into responding to you.

    So it's not what I said but how I said it and what you think my intention was, which is basically a combination of mind reading and tone policing.

    Youtube is full of people complaining about Patreon censorship. What censorship? The cryptocurrency world is full of people pointing out how Youtube and other platforms de-monetize people. In the eyes of many people and not just me, de-monetization is a form of censorship. You disagree, cool, but you are not disagreeing with me but with many many many people that are angry about it.

    I do not disagree that demonization is censorship. I disagree that "not getting rewards" is not demonetization. You see, twisted Rewards into Income.

    Call it de-monetization or whatever you want. Its still a bad thing and contrary to the idea of crypto.

    This isn't a semantic disagreement at all, stop trying to spin it as such. Rewards are not guaranteed. X number of views is attached to a guarantee, x number of subscribers the same. X number upvotes does not come with any such guarantee. Treating rewards as given when they are not is what we disagree on.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       6 years ago (edited)

      rather than making any constructive suggestions or pointing out the WHY something can't work.

      So because I don't see anything to suggest, as I've said, that means I'm "reducing your point?" or what?

      Also, you want me to point out a negative, basically to provide you reasoning why it cannot work when you assert that "there has to be a way" so I have to prove why there cannot be a way? Do you understand what you are asking me?

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         6 years ago 

        I'm asking nothing of you. When you reply to something I say and refute it you should be refuting it with some logical basis for refuting it. You do bring out nothing but semantic arguments trying to say "reward" and "income" are different.

        They are not different, the people that have SP have a vote amount that can be calculated, this means its fixed. The only reason upvotes are not reliable income is due to downvotes existing in the system. Do you think Patreon tips are any more reliable or any less of a "reward" than upvotes? They are both voluntary systems of rewarding content producers.

        Also, I do not just say "there must be a better way" I gave in this comment area the very solution.

        The solution:

        Saying all that, allow me to make my key point for both the last comment and this one. I'm trying to explain that the market seems to be telling us that our rewarding system based on stake won't work, but that doesn't mean DPOS doesn't work. Resource credits are a brilliant idea and it makes perfect sense that SP stakers receive benefit through a delegation economy of RCs.

        Perhaps the world will not accept the notion of whale/orca/minnow/plankton vote levels. We might need to make voting for the reward pool equal, however, the resource credit system can still compensate whales through a delegation market of RCs. The RC system is an excellent way to reward investors because they benefit from all the many communities that desire access to the Steem network.

        People are claiming that SMTs will solve the disparity problem and downvoting harassment. I strongly disagree on both counts. The problem with SMTs is that they will almost always be practically worthless. STEEM/SBD will remain what people want because its a universal internet money, while most SMTs will be hardly better than wordpress token features that have been around for years. In order for a token to matter to anyone, it needs to either be useful in many places, or the one place that you can use it needs to be incredibly popular. And this is why the STEEM reward pool system needs to be palatable to more than just early investors like a common pump & dump project, but to billions of people.

        If the incentive for stakers was an RC delegation economy and not raping the reward pool, we would not see bidbots, self-voting, reward pool "milking" and we would not see downvote harassment such as Markymark and others experienced simply for disagreeing with someone on something.

        See, I don't just say "there has to be a better way" I give you a better way. You're welcome.

        $0.00
          Reply
          Loading...

          Coin Marketplace

          STEEM 0.13
          TRX 0.34
          JST 0.034
          BTC 111081.32
          ETH 4326.18
          USDT 1.00
          SBD 0.83