I would be prepared for many v2's in the future.
Currently, people still value fiat notes. And so, will trade all kinds of things for that. The banksters can make as many of those things as it takes to buy controlling shares in anything.
Fortunately, the technology is changing so quickly, that by the time a group bought steemit.v1, we already may have migrated to steemit.v2, just because the technology gap demanded it.
In the future, the community is what is important. It is actually the value of the company. Now, that community is becoming... well, they are not stuck, because the internets have become much more ubiquitous.
As you pointed out, we could fork steemit and carry on like nothing happened, seemingly overnight.
You make an excellent point. Myspace was easily abandoned for Facebook.
However, Facebook is now much better at demanding attention, and does so while paying nothing.
In the last month Steem has sextupled in value, and even if another platform offered improved technology, we have stake we don't want to abandon in Steem. It is the blockchain itself that is vulnerable to purchase. Forking Steemit, or using another UI won't fix it, either, because our stake is in Steem.
Still, I've walked away from far more than I have financially at stake in Steem =p.
I reckon we could find a way.
I wonder if the devs expected consortiums of bandits outbidding each other for controlling stakes in the witnesses, vying for control of the global economy...
I do not know how these cards will play out, all I know is that there will be much change in the future.
We cannot fight, our worst enemies, the banksters, head on. In fact, we shouldn't fight at all, because that gives them credibility, realness. Ignoring them is the only way out.
So, if they come, it will either make no difference, or we will fork the chain and be gone.
We will win, but they will indeed throw everything they have at us.
Further, steem has a long way to go in figuring out algorithms that actually reward good content and curration while not being scammed, flagged, spammed, or collude against in any way. Don't know how we are going to do this, but that is half the fun.
The only reason you can present this argument is due to the success of Steemit in under 2 years! Your argument is terrifying, but underwritten with hope. We will move to Steemit V2. A new way of being has been created!
Code is infinitely mutable. The code that runs the blockchain is run on the witnesses machines. If the witnesses were elected by stake that presented them specific code to run, I'm not sure what might limit the extent of the fork(s).
If all top witnesses are simply employees of ZuckerBorg, why can't they just run whatever code they want?
IIRC there are only a few elements that can be adjusted by the witnesses.
There are only a few elements than can (and should) be adjusted by witnesses at any time, but only witnesses together have the power to fork the chain, i.e. apply new code to the existing chain. That's huge power.
ZClassic is a fork of ZCash. 20% of rewards in ZCash went to the founders. Folks stepped back and asked WTF? Why does that make sense? Let's fork and start over and drop the 20% goes to founders crap.
I've begun to wonder if similar may not happen with STEEM?
From my various readings, that is one of the things hold STEEM back. The big ninja mine at the beginning. Why did that happen? Who is holding that STEEM? What was the purpose? How will that STEEM be handled in future?
So, logically fairly simple to just fork and start over. But reset so no ninja mine.
And maybe, just maybe, deal with some of the other issues that valued-customer brings up.
If happened with ZEC. ZCL is gaining quickly and in a couple of months could overtake ZEC.
The acrimony on steemit is growing to the point someone may ask - why not start STEEM over?
"... just fork and start over. But reset so no ninja mine."
It's been tried. Some months ago, but @l0k1 vanished, and that was the last I heard of Calibrae.
It might take a different team, but he thought it was doable. IIRC the code is FOSS (I might not know what the Hell I'm talking about regarding the license) so it is available to fork. Whether it is or not, I don't expect that to be the last attempt.
How the market is built has nothing to do with @ned.
This spring (late April- early March) I will be offering food for sale at my farmstand in Steem, SBD and BTC.
This may not sound like much, but I'm offering to pay some of my farm helpers/associates in Steem. @ted didn't ask me to do it. It just makes sense to do it, so I'm doing it.
Buyers need sellers. I'm not going to sell my SP, and I'm going to keep voting for Luke Stokes.
A fast attempt at a hostile takeover would only work if you were buying whole accounts, which is an incredibly expensive proposition.
A slow attempt, giving whales time to power down and sell; would give us time to collude on holding out for a million per steem or organise a fork.
When you say 'incredibly expensive', I think it is, for folks that aren't billionaires. However, there's billionaires, and M&A that takes a far larger investment than would Steem.
Particularly in view of the fact that Steemit is naturally, natively, a voluntarist government. We're not just talking about a social media platform, but a way to replace states, banks, and propagandists. Is there any price those institutions wouldn't collectively pay to keep their roles in society, and their power?
Even if it cost every Steem in existence, it'd be cheap.
Precisely for the reasons you mention, I am certain buying accounts would be the method undertaken.
Surely the fact they might try is reason to be heavily invested, whether you want to realise the gains by selling out, or by keeping your stake and enjoying the fat curation rewards.
I hear what you're saying, but if it didn't happen to bitcoin (assuming it hasn't), then maybe states are just collections of self serving individuals with no real loyalty to the state. If so, those who get it, will stockpile steem themselves rather than trying to kill it.
Remember, there are hundreds of crypto's and we can fork most of them with very little notice. It's easy to assume that deep enough pockets can achieve anything, but in practice, that's not actually true.
It's an easy thing to fix, but it entails the whales losing control of the witnesses, and truly decentralizing the blockchain, by weighting witness votes either equally, or by an improved reputation , and excluding bots for witness votes, with 2FA, or similar mechanism.
Separating whales from witnesses would result in a totally different, and arguably better STEEM. From the top 50 witnesses, we would lose 25, whose only real interest is running shill campaigns for their own enrichment.
If you are smart geek and know how to code, do you go to work for IBM or Google or Facebook? No, you become a witness on steemit and write a few cool bots that can steal you millions of $$.
For clarity, this isn't all witnesses. Maybe not even a majority.
Finding devs more interested in good governance, when the project is actually creating currency, is highly counterintuitive. However, IMHO, the currency is ultimately dependent on the governance, not the governance on the currency.
After all, that's the very system cryptocurrency is intended to replace!
As one can see from the current price action of SBDs and steem, there is an underlying frailty in the blockchain's currency issuance that remains unaddressed.
#1 - SBDs are not pegged to $1 USD, unlike the original thought process of the founders of this platform when the steem blockchain first originated.
On page 12 of 32 of the Steem White Paper, it says, "We fully expect there to be a narrow trading range between $0.95 and $1.05 for SBD under normal market conditions." See: https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf
The imposition of this characterization on SBDs has been unequivocally discredited by the free market via the fact that SBDs have traded well above the $1 USD level for nearly two months now. This presents a marketing dilemma for Steemit Inc that is unresolved - what in fact are SBDs? Explain them to the lay user in layman's terms. Interpretations vary even among seasoned users here.
#2 - The disproportionate amount of steem power in possession of whale accounts is the antithesis of decentralization. Steemit Inc could mitigate this to some degree by "burning" some of its own idle SP (over 70M SP sits in its account), effectively reducing the supply of steem. It would create a scarcity that would perhaps provide for an opportunity for value appreciation to be realized and sustained via natural supply and demand forces. Instead, we see the opposite happening - every rally is fiercely sold off and price action is erratic.
In light of the above, I am not sure if a hostile take over is even something in anyone's minds to be honest. Why bother? Twitter's valuation ($18B) relative to Facebook ($550B) is minuscule; its brand is ubiquitous but it is simply poorly managed. Zuckerberg or any other tech billionaire could pursue a hostile bid there and integrate blockchain technology within the platform, affording themselves immediate access to over 300M monthly active users. No negotiation with whales on Steemit would even be necessary.
Despite Steemit's issues, I recognize that the value is in the steem blockchain - the platform in its present form does not do it justice as a proof of concept and demonstration of the blockchain's potential.
SBD's are debts, like debentures. I have heard some witnesses discuss the peg being more important to prevent them from being worth less than a dollar, and that them being more than a dollar isn't of concern. The idea behind SBD's was that most people are unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, and one pegged to the value of a currency they know well, the dollar, would make them more acceptable.
That being the case, I don't think letting the price go up helps to make cryptocurrencies understandable. The market for SBD's is so thin that not much can be done to prevent them from being bought up. One thing that can be done is issue more of them, to fatten the market, increasing supply, and some witnesses are doing this.
It's why rewards are now so SBD heavy, rather than 50/50.
Steemit is vastly different than Twitter, and simply tacking on some tipping mechanism on Twitter wouldn't emulate the ability of Steemit to engender such involved discussion as we are having, for example.
Also, Steemit is small potatoes in the social media market - but it has an outsized influence, because of it's rewards mechanism.
As to your assessment that there's no reason for concern about a hostile takeover, I hope you're right, and I'm sure some whales hope you're wrong.
70M Steem that sits idle does not affect supply. It may as well be burned, but it's not impacting price, because it's not on the market.
I reckon it's a safety. If some consortium seeks to unduly influence the witnesses in a way Stinc doesn't like, that stake can prevent any problems. It's also a big, phat, golden parachute.
It is refreshing to engage with users here that are actually thoughtful, though unfortunately it seems posts like this rarely make it to the trending page.
I struggle with this platform both as a user and as a holder of steem. The steem blockchain itself is valued at just over $1B right now - relative to Twitter valued at $18B (which has been rumored to be a buyout target for nearly two years now to no avail), Steemit and its underlying blockchain could be purchased outright by a tech billionaire quite easily if they really wanted to.
I don't see this happening though. Steem had first mover advantage on many alt coins that are valued far higher now. Twitter, with its brand ubiquity and daily reference in mainstream media stories, is plagued by mismanagement, exorbitant stock compensation to its executives, and stalled innovation relative to its peers in the social media space. Similarly, Steemit as the 'front and center' face of what the steem blockchain is all about is managed in a lackadaisical manner. Countless posts have been written by users calling for better governance and here we are in 2018 still in beta mode. The fact that whales own over 90% of the SP is insane.
But I see the potential in the blockchain itself. There is a use case in this very interface via our interaction, albeit not representative of the blockchain's full capabilities. Utopian and other iterations built on the steem network are starting to better demonstrate the power of the blockchain in that sense. One can only hope that the smart media tokens initiative that Ned has been focused on will spark and sustain market interest in the long run.
If you go to Ned's Twitter page, he has a tweet that is pinned at the top of his profile which reads: "STEEM should be a top 10 coin just on the basis of usage level and community size." See: https://twitter.com/certainassets/status/943541461852803072
If I had his ear, I would point him to steem's ranking on Coinmarketcap and ask him frankly: "On what basis is your assertion if the market is clearly not buying it? What are you doing to convince the world that steem should be among the Top 10 cryptos? What's the pitch, beyond a tweet? And what's being done to prove it beyond just words?"
Perhaps someday Ned will more clearly articulate his point of view. Whether it convinces the rest of the crypto space remains to be seen. The market will ultimately be the judge.
Quite well articulated. I really think Steem should be valued more than BTC as a currency, except for the stake-weighting. I hope that will change eventually, as whales grasp economic theory.
Most of the Steem held isn't held by seasoned investors, but flashminers, who happened to get there first.
Steemit Inc could mitigate this to some degree by "burning" some of its own idle SP (over 70M SP sits in its account), effectively reducing the supply of steem.
I am not an expert in crypto, blockchain or even social media for that matter. I also find it quite tiresome to see all the abuse happening on steemit platform and STINC is not doing anything.
However, just a comment at your comment. Few days ago, steemit took away all the 15 SP that was initially accredited to users when they start. Although 15SP is not much per user, collectively it is a lot of money. Which make me think that steemit founders are collecting their money back for some reason that is only known to them
As a conclusion, the idea of steemit using that idle amount to the benefit of users is not likely at all.
And the rewards borne of stake. It's not clear how far you are criticizing stake weighting because you are clearly supportive of it, at least in part.
Do you only mean to say for witness selection? Are you happy for rewards to be meted out based on stake weighted voting?
The real issue you seem to be criticizing for real is the so-called "pre-mining" period which allowed Steemit Inc. to insure it had a controlling interest. There's nothing that can be done about this short of revisionist forks or very unlikely voluntary action on their part.
I can also personally guarantee you that if Facebook buys out Steemit there will be a counter revolution. ⚔️
You pack a lot of points into a small paragraph =p
I am here intent on decentralizing the witness votes, which do not deliver rewards.
I have often ranted about how Steemit would be improved were rewards delinked from stake, and I have not changed my views, but that is not necessary to secure the blockchain from hostile takeover.
You are correct that I do find the premine to distort the economic structure of the society within Steemit. I completely agree with you regarding potential improvements to that problem. It is highly unlikely that will change, and only a fork that utilizes a different currency than Steem might solve it.
However, decentralizing the witness votes and securing the blockchain from hostile takeover will not take those stakes away, nor decrease the rewards that inure to their possessors. The only way it affects those stakes financially is by precluding golden parachutes resulting from a hostile takeover.
"I can also personally guarantee you that if Facebook buys out Steemit there will be a counter revolution. ⚔️"
Sometimes you just have to spit on your palms and hoist the black flag, turning to the business at hand.
Sometimes you just have to spit on your palms and hoist the black flag, turning to the business at hand.
I'm sure there are many considering it. I'd love to do a poll to see what's holding them back.
The way I see it Steemit Inc is a traditional company in many ways and has just entered the blockchain space arbitrarily. Keeping a controlling stake in the hands of trusted investors, and likely the founders, is a very common setup and we shouldn't be surprised about it. Calling it a "pre-mine" doesn't really help that, I'm just using the accepted terminology here, but it's pretty normal.
It's not normal however for libertarian communities to do this, those who want to change the world ethically. I wonder if @dan found himself tiring of the traditional corporate structure, from what I see he's very idealistic. Many of the folks here are too, many you and I are.
Anyway, things are directed by Steemit Inc. Their leadership has navigated 19 hard forks and grown the community, making a massively valuable coin in the process. Of course this is the space to be to get lucky, but it's hard to truly make it, as you discuss in your post, longevity rests on technological coherence.
I think they should be more open about it: "yes, we've got a controlling stake and we aim to steer the ship, even against somewhat popular opinion." Nothing massively unpopular will get passed but many of the highest stakeholders already agree on many things before they happen, similar to how national politics works.
Steemit will not be the voluntryist utopia. But that doesn't mean it will fail. Here's the thing you miss in your post: smart, strong leadership can make projects succeed. Even unethical leaders can overcome the competition and make their business a success. We just have to see if we want to hitch ourselves to the rocket.
I anticipate at least 2 major forks in 2018. Not hard forks, but change of direction forks. Hold on to your butts! When SMTs hit things will change. And at any moment, as you say, they might just sell out.
I can't really disagree with anything you just said. I do want to address one thing tho.
"Even unethical leaders can overcome the competition and make their business a success."
I don't see any action that @ned has taken as unethical, and I don't want to leave that impression. Were I to discover he was selling votes secretly, or covertly leasing SP using stake he controlled, I'd probably have to question his ethics.
From what I have seen, I believe he has endeavored to uphold the highest ethical standards.
However, regarding ethics, I believe it is far easier to succeed to attain power without them. Indeed, I have come to believe that the least ethical competitors for power tend to seize it.
Right, I guess I did imply that perhaps he was an unethical leader when what I really wanted to suggest what that if they decided to make unethical choices it wouldn't mean they would result in Steem crashing.
So what I did want to imply that we do have strong, more or less centralized leadership, the thing I said before the unethical leader stuff. This is incompatible with the kind of anti-stake position you take for obvious reasons.
I can understand why you'd think that, while I completely disagree.
I don't think it would be at all unethical for the centralized leadership to sell their accounts.
They've never promised not to, and have no obligation to.
It's their stake.
Some folks think @ned isn't interested in money, as he has enough. I have enough too. Even I wouldn't turn down more, in the right circumstances.
I cannot predict what the right circumstances are for the centralized stake controlling the witnesses, and can have no confidence that their right circumstances aren't the worst for the success of the world's first voluntarist cryptocurrency based government.
I didn't mean to imply you did say that. I merely wanted to point out why centralized control of the blockchain was a potential problem, that would necessitate a fork and do-over from scratch, which I reckon most folks would prefer to avoid, because they'd lose the stakes they have.
I'd prefer to avoid it.
It's avoidable, and avoiding it doesn't require any redistribution of stake,
...use the data in the blockchain however they want...
Isn't the data in Steemit our intellectual property? Or by posting are we selling our musings for Steem? That is important for me to understand if I'm going to keep posting.
The very fact that the government isn't stepping in and claiming that cryptocurrency is counterfeiting makes me think it's some sort of trap like the Internet. The Internet was designed to compile social data for analysis. It's done a bang-up job of that. Big Brother is now officially watching.
Blockchain technology is data compilation taken to the next level. Everything is recorded in perpetuity. I can hear the prosecuting attorney now saying, "Isn't it true Mr. Jones than in 2019 at 8:13 am GMT you answered a post by one Chang Mi, wherein you stated that..."
Yeah, I get it. Since blockchains can be conquered and forked any way you please simply by an infusion of fiat, perhaps that's the real reason it is allowed to develop, to get people used to using it the same way they now use plastic for every conceivable purchase instead of paper. Then, when it's time to take over, the conquest will be quick and effective. While the blockchain itself will be distributed, the control of the info contained therein will be controlled by a central authority.
Those financier Mofos aren't going to let their fiat baby drown in a sea of popular virtual currency. They're going to do whatever it takes to control it.
Well, anyone has access to the blockchain data Steemit generates. I'm not sure how fungible that is, but ZuckerBorg can access it now. Were he to buy the controlling stake requisite to forking, I just couldn't predict what limitations might be possible.
"Since blockchains can be conquered and forked any way you please simply by an infusion of fiat..."
Ackshually, not all of them can. Steem is particularly amenable to simply being bought, whereas with BTC you'd need to either buy the miners, or make enough miners to constitute at least 34%, which can be enough to fork the chain. Most people think it takes 51% to fork BTC, but it has been shown mathematically to require only 34% in certain circumstances.
For Steem, because PoS (Proof of Stake, not any other identically spelled popular abbreviation), all that is necessary is to have enough Steem to control the top witnesses. While this is not easy for po' folk, it is for those who are excessively burdened with capital.
"The very fact that the government isn't stepping in and claiming that cryptocurrency is counterfeiting makes me think it's some sort of trap like the Internet."
Well, it's not counterfeiting, which would be making fakes of extant fiat currencies. It's practically the same thing as Air Miles, or Rewards Points given out by your local retailer, which makes it kinda hard to separate from that herd legally.
I'm certain it's a trap. I'm amazed by those that trumpet cryptos as victory over banksters just because it's virtual. Banksters have dreamed of virtual currency since, well, ever. Indeed, most dollars have never been printed, and only exist virtually. Most fiat currency is just as virtual as BTC, about 90%, IIRC.
However, the sheer plethora of currencies is a bit out of bounds for C&C methods extant. Nexus illustrates how cryptos can get beyond regulatory grasp. They're gonna put up a swarm of cubesats that mine crypto beyond the legal jurisdiction of regulatory authorities, and create a new backbone for internetworking.
This is why I suspect that while a given crypto might be a trap, the thousands of them together might be a trap for the trappers, and millions, even billions, of cryptos may well be something beyond regulation.
Personally, I'm more interested in the post-market economy that will grow from non-point source production and the cessation of need for capital.
Thanks for clearing this up (a bit). I'm a real toady when it comes to imaginary stuff.
Personally, I'm more interested in the post-market economy that will grow from non-point source production and the cessation of need for capital.
Are you referring to accepting crypto for goods and services as well as using 3-D printers at home rather than heading down to the big box store for your needed junk? Maybe you could link me to a page that explains this concept if you could. I'm having a hard time envisioning it. My poor brain is vintage 20th century. Thanks.
Both cryptocurrencies and 3D printing are steps on the path to a post-market economy.
I haven't produced such a page, and have neither looked for such, so cannot link anything to you. My own confidence in the eventuation of the death of capital is based solely on simply extrapolating from the present through what is being developed, to what will result.
I note that technology inevitably increases the power of the individual compared to groups. From fire and chipped rocks, to surveillance and the darpanet itself, technology improves the ability of individuals to undertake operations that were formerly impossible.
When I consider continuing advance in computers and communication, genetics and medicine, nanotechnology, 3D printing, power generation, etc., and how all these technologies concatenate, or will as such development progresses, I cannot help but note that at some point it will no longer be necessary to use capital.
There will be no need to buy or sell, to earn and pay, to attain necessary goods and services.
I refer to this eventual transformation as the post-market economy. While I concede I made it up based on speculation and extrapolation, I point out that I am not alone in doing so, and there are historical examples of progress that make it pretty obvious.
I predict no particular timeline, or path to the eventual death of capital, as such precision is far above my pay grade. Indeed, I ignore such details and try to work backwards from the eventual transformed society to develop ideas and means of developing it.
It is this that informs the bulk of my posts regarding Steemit, in fact. I believe Steemit is very close to a mechanism that can give people the necessary ability to conduct transactions and value others' work, without being dependent on economic necessity.
None of us will starve if we don't get upvotes. Steemit doesn't produce goods, cars, or homes. All of those things will be produced, eventually, by completely automated systems that require no capital. Steemit is a way for people to interact in the ways we have evolved in a pre-automated production environment that profitably benefits society through our natural behaviours.
Dunno if that clears anything up at all, really =p
Edit: I feel I was imprecise regarding Steemit. It CAN be a mechanism that potentiates global commerce in a post-market economy, but first it has to be unfucked. It's presently mostly a way for flashminers to profit from the stakes they hold.
This sort of reminds me of how atomic power was going to make electricity so abundant and cheap that it would be virtually free.
My dad built a house in 1956. It was a "Gold Medallion" house. There were no building codes in those days, but he spared no expense. It had insulated walls, stucco on the inside walls as well as the out. All of the lumber that went into it was treated. It was green, embalmed in cuprinol to keep termites from eating it. But the most modern feature was that it was all electric. It had heating coils embedded in the ceiling. You could dial each room's temperature independently. The house at Tomorrow Land in Disneyland wasn't much more advanced.
I haven't had a utility bill in a dozen years. I remember when the boys at Enron ripped us off. My electric bill went from $75 one month to $275 the next. I also believe that there is now a fee tacked on for "nuclear decomissioning."
So I'm not holding my breath when it comes to technological innovations that will make us freer. Of course, I make a Luddite look like an astronaut. I've been wrong before. (that was the time I thought I was wrong) ;D
I would be prepared for many v2's in the future.
Currently, people still value fiat notes. And so, will trade all kinds of things for that. The banksters can make as many of those things as it takes to buy controlling shares in anything.
Fortunately, the technology is changing so quickly, that by the time a group bought steemit.v1, we already may have migrated to steemit.v2, just because the technology gap demanded it.
In the future, the community is what is important. It is actually the value of the company. Now, that community is becoming... well, they are not stuck, because the internets have become much more ubiquitous.
As you pointed out, we could fork steemit and carry on like nothing happened, seemingly overnight.
You make an excellent point. Myspace was easily abandoned for Facebook.
However, Facebook is now much better at demanding attention, and does so while paying nothing.
In the last month Steem has sextupled in value, and even if another platform offered improved technology, we have stake we don't want to abandon in Steem. It is the blockchain itself that is vulnerable to purchase. Forking Steemit, or using another UI won't fix it, either, because our stake is in Steem.
Still, I've walked away from far more than I have financially at stake in Steem =p.
I reckon we could find a way.
I wonder if the devs expected consortiums of bandits outbidding each other for controlling stakes in the witnesses, vying for control of the global economy...
I do not know how these cards will play out, all I know is that there will be much change in the future.
We cannot fight, our worst enemies, the banksters, head on. In fact, we shouldn't fight at all, because that gives them credibility, realness. Ignoring them is the only way out.
So, if they come, it will either make no difference, or we will fork the chain and be gone.
We will win, but they will indeed throw everything they have at us.
Further, steem has a long way to go in figuring out algorithms that actually reward good content and curration while not being scammed, flagged, spammed, or collude against in any way. Don't know how we are going to do this, but that is half the fun.
So far, so fun =)
The only reason you can present this argument is due to the success of Steemit in under 2 years! Your argument is terrifying, but underwritten with hope. We will move to Steemit V2. A new way of being has been created!
Let's hope so!
How much of the underlying code base can be changed by a targeted buyout by someone like Zuckerberg?
IIRC there are only a few elements that can be adjusted by the witnesses.
Code is infinitely mutable. The code that runs the blockchain is run on the witnesses machines. If the witnesses were elected by stake that presented them specific code to run, I'm not sure what might limit the extent of the fork(s).
If all top witnesses are simply employees of ZuckerBorg, why can't they just run whatever code they want?
There are only a few elements than can (and should) be adjusted by witnesses at any time, but only witnesses together have the power to fork the chain, i.e. apply new code to the existing chain. That's huge power.
ZClassic is a fork of ZCash. 20% of rewards in ZCash went to the founders. Folks stepped back and asked WTF? Why does that make sense? Let's fork and start over and drop the 20% goes to founders crap.
I've begun to wonder if similar may not happen with STEEM?
From my various readings, that is one of the things hold STEEM back. The big ninja mine at the beginning. Why did that happen? Who is holding that STEEM? What was the purpose? How will that STEEM be handled in future?
So, logically fairly simple to just fork and start over. But reset so no ninja mine.
And maybe, just maybe, deal with some of the other issues that valued-customer brings up.
If happened with ZEC. ZCL is gaining quickly and in a couple of months could overtake ZEC.
The acrimony on steemit is growing to the point someone may ask - why not start STEEM over?
It's been tried. Some months ago, but @l0k1 vanished, and that was the last I heard of Calibrae.
It might take a different team, but he thought it was doable. IIRC the code is FOSS (I might not know what the Hell I'm talking about regarding the license) so it is available to fork. Whether it is or not, I don't expect that to be the last attempt.
I reckon we'll see how it shakes out.
The last public commits on Calibrae project are almost 3 months ago, so it's seems dead.
It will take a different team, it includes members of another failed to fly blockchain based system DAWN.
The code is, and the license permits new chains, which it didn't before @dan 's departure incidentally.
Thanks! I did not know @dan had been a holdout regarding forks.
Well I didn't say that, but the timing is very suspicious!
I concede I ignored the deliberate inclusion of 'incidentally'. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
Highly rEsteemed for this line alone...
"Steemit is a vast improvement because it eliminates amateur trolls, leaving only the professionals."
But the rest lines up with my sentiments exactly. Glad these observations are coming from a Valued Customer.
SteemON brother!
"He's shown no interest in telling me what to do, either."
Unfortunately, that is part of the beauty of Steem.
For Steem to take a market foothold, Steem users must make something of it.
It's not @ned that gives Steem value.
Its users like you and me.
How the market is built has nothing to do with @ned.
This spring (late April- early March) I will be offering food for sale at my farmstand in Steem, SBD and BTC.
This may not sound like much, but I'm offering to pay some of my farm helpers/associates in Steem.
@ted didn't ask me to do it. It just makes sense to do it, so I'm doing it.
Steem does not belong to @ned.
Steem belongs to holders of Steem who wish to put it to work.
We don't control @ned. No reason to concern ourselves with @ned.
We only control ourselves and Steem.
Time to focus on what we can control instead of laying blame on others
Steem belongs to them.
Buyers need sellers. I'm not going to sell my SP, and I'm going to keep voting for Luke Stokes.
A fast attempt at a hostile takeover would only work if you were buying whole accounts, which is an incredibly expensive proposition.
A slow attempt, giving whales time to power down and sell; would give us time to collude on holding out for a million per steem or organise a fork.
When you say 'incredibly expensive', I think it is, for folks that aren't billionaires. However, there's billionaires, and M&A that takes a far larger investment than would Steem.
Particularly in view of the fact that Steemit is naturally, natively, a voluntarist government. We're not just talking about a social media platform, but a way to replace states, banks, and propagandists. Is there any price those institutions wouldn't collectively pay to keep their roles in society, and their power?
Even if it cost every Steem in existence, it'd be cheap.
Precisely for the reasons you mention, I am certain buying accounts would be the method undertaken.
Thanks!
Surely the fact they might try is reason to be heavily invested, whether you want to realise the gains by selling out, or by keeping your stake and enjoying the fat curation rewards.
I hear what you're saying, but if it didn't happen to bitcoin (assuming it hasn't), then maybe states are just collections of self serving individuals with no real loyalty to the state. If so, those who get it, will stockpile steem themselves rather than trying to kill it.
Remember, there are hundreds of crypto's and we can fork most of them with very little notice. It's easy to assume that deep enough pockets can achieve anything, but in practice, that's not actually true.
It's an easy thing to fix, but it entails the whales losing control of the witnesses, and truly decentralizing the blockchain, by weighting witness votes either equally, or by an improved reputation , and excluding bots for witness votes, with 2FA, or similar mechanism.
IIRC, @dan recommends identification.
Whales can barely agree not to flag each other into penury. They'll never agree to give up control of the witnesses.
Separating whales from witnesses would result in a totally different, and arguably better STEEM. From the top 50 witnesses, we would lose 25, whose only real interest is running shill campaigns for their own enrichment.
If you are smart geek and know how to code, do you go to work for IBM or Google or Facebook? No, you become a witness on steemit and write a few cool bots that can steal you millions of $$.
For clarity, this isn't all witnesses. Maybe not even a majority.
Many are selfless, but not all.
This is why I proxy @followbtcnews.
Finding devs more interested in good governance, when the project is actually creating currency, is highly counterintuitive. However, IMHO, the currency is ultimately dependent on the governance, not the governance on the currency.
After all, that's the very system cryptocurrency is intended to replace!
Thanks!
As one can see from the current price action of SBDs and steem, there is an underlying frailty in the blockchain's currency issuance that remains unaddressed.
#1 - SBDs are not pegged to $1 USD, unlike the original thought process of the founders of this platform when the steem blockchain first originated.
On page 12 of 32 of the Steem White Paper, it says, "We fully expect there to be a narrow trading range between $0.95 and $1.05 for SBD under normal market conditions." See: https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf
The imposition of this characterization on SBDs has been unequivocally discredited by the free market via the fact that SBDs have traded well above the $1 USD level for nearly two months now. This presents a marketing dilemma for Steemit Inc that is unresolved - what in fact are SBDs? Explain them to the lay user in layman's terms. Interpretations vary even among seasoned users here.
#2 - The disproportionate amount of steem power in possession of whale accounts is the antithesis of decentralization. Steemit Inc could mitigate this to some degree by "burning" some of its own idle SP (over 70M SP sits in its account), effectively reducing the supply of steem. It would create a scarcity that would perhaps provide for an opportunity for value appreciation to be realized and sustained via natural supply and demand forces. Instead, we see the opposite happening - every rally is fiercely sold off and price action is erratic.
In light of the above, I am not sure if a hostile take over is even something in anyone's minds to be honest. Why bother? Twitter's valuation ($18B) relative to Facebook ($550B) is minuscule; its brand is ubiquitous but it is simply poorly managed. Zuckerberg or any other tech billionaire could pursue a hostile bid there and integrate blockchain technology within the platform, affording themselves immediate access to over 300M monthly active users. No negotiation with whales on Steemit would even be necessary.
Despite Steemit's issues, I recognize that the value is in the steem blockchain - the platform in its present form does not do it justice as a proof of concept and demonstration of the blockchain's potential.
Remarkably salient and on-point comment.
SBD's are debts, like debentures. I have heard some witnesses discuss the peg being more important to prevent them from being worth less than a dollar, and that them being more than a dollar isn't of concern. The idea behind SBD's was that most people are unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, and one pegged to the value of a currency they know well, the dollar, would make them more acceptable.
That being the case, I don't think letting the price go up helps to make cryptocurrencies understandable. The market for SBD's is so thin that not much can be done to prevent them from being bought up. One thing that can be done is issue more of them, to fatten the market, increasing supply, and some witnesses are doing this.
It's why rewards are now so SBD heavy, rather than 50/50.
Steemit is vastly different than Twitter, and simply tacking on some tipping mechanism on Twitter wouldn't emulate the ability of Steemit to engender such involved discussion as we are having, for example.
Also, Steemit is small potatoes in the social media market - but it has an outsized influence, because of it's rewards mechanism.
As to your assessment that there's no reason for concern about a hostile takeover, I hope you're right, and I'm sure some whales hope you're wrong.
70M Steem that sits idle does not affect supply. It may as well be burned, but it's not impacting price, because it's not on the market.
I reckon it's a safety. If some consortium seeks to unduly influence the witnesses in a way Stinc doesn't like, that stake can prevent any problems. It's also a big, phat, golden parachute.
Otherwise, you're spot on!
Thanks!
It is refreshing to engage with users here that are actually thoughtful, though unfortunately it seems posts like this rarely make it to the trending page.
I struggle with this platform both as a user and as a holder of steem. The steem blockchain itself is valued at just over $1B right now - relative to Twitter valued at $18B (which has been rumored to be a buyout target for nearly two years now to no avail), Steemit and its underlying blockchain could be purchased outright by a tech billionaire quite easily if they really wanted to.
I don't see this happening though. Steem had first mover advantage on many alt coins that are valued far higher now. Twitter, with its brand ubiquity and daily reference in mainstream media stories, is plagued by mismanagement, exorbitant stock compensation to its executives, and stalled innovation relative to its peers in the social media space. Similarly, Steemit as the 'front and center' face of what the steem blockchain is all about is managed in a lackadaisical manner. Countless posts have been written by users calling for better governance and here we are in 2018 still in beta mode. The fact that whales own over 90% of the SP is insane.
But I see the potential in the blockchain itself. There is a use case in this very interface via our interaction, albeit not representative of the blockchain's full capabilities. Utopian and other iterations built on the steem network are starting to better demonstrate the power of the blockchain in that sense. One can only hope that the smart media tokens initiative that Ned has been focused on will spark and sustain market interest in the long run.
If you go to Ned's Twitter page, he has a tweet that is pinned at the top of his profile which reads: "STEEM should be a top 10 coin just on the basis of usage level and community size." See: https://twitter.com/certainassets/status/943541461852803072
If I had his ear, I would point him to steem's ranking on Coinmarketcap and ask him frankly: "On what basis is your assertion if the market is clearly not buying it? What are you doing to convince the world that steem should be among the Top 10 cryptos? What's the pitch, beyond a tweet? And what's being done to prove it beyond just words?"
Perhaps someday Ned will more clearly articulate his point of view. Whether it convinces the rest of the crypto space remains to be seen. The market will ultimately be the judge.
Quite well articulated. I really think Steem should be valued more than BTC as a currency, except for the stake-weighting. I hope that will change eventually, as whales grasp economic theory.
Most of the Steem held isn't held by seasoned investors, but flashminers, who happened to get there first.
Maybe I'm optimistic. Time will tell.
Thanks!
I am not an expert in crypto, blockchain or even social media for that matter. I also find it quite tiresome to see all the abuse happening on steemit platform and STINC is not doing anything.
However, just a comment at your comment. Few days ago, steemit took away all the 15 SP that was initially accredited to users when they start. Although 15SP is not much per user, collectively it is a lot of money. Which make me think that steemit founders are collecting their money back for some reason that is only known to them
As a conclusion, the idea of steemit using that idle amount to the benefit of users is not likely at all.
Thank you for your educating comments
And the rewards borne of stake. It's not clear how far you are criticizing stake weighting because you are clearly supportive of it, at least in part.
Do you only mean to say for witness selection? Are you happy for rewards to be meted out based on stake weighted voting?
The real issue you seem to be criticizing for real is the so-called "pre-mining" period which allowed Steemit Inc. to insure it had a controlling interest. There's nothing that can be done about this short of revisionist forks or very unlikely voluntary action on their part.
I can also personally guarantee you that if Facebook buys out Steemit there will be a counter revolution. ⚔️
You pack a lot of points into a small paragraph =p
I am here intent on decentralizing the witness votes, which do not deliver rewards.
I have often ranted about how Steemit would be improved were rewards delinked from stake, and I have not changed my views, but that is not necessary to secure the blockchain from hostile takeover.
You are correct that I do find the premine to distort the economic structure of the society within Steemit. I completely agree with you regarding potential improvements to that problem. It is highly unlikely that will change, and only a fork that utilizes a different currency than Steem might solve it.
However, decentralizing the witness votes and securing the blockchain from hostile takeover will not take those stakes away, nor decrease the rewards that inure to their possessors. The only way it affects those stakes financially is by precluding golden parachutes resulting from a hostile takeover.
Sometimes you just have to spit on your palms and hoist the black flag, turning to the business at hand.
I'm sure there are many considering it. I'd love to do a poll to see what's holding them back.
The way I see it Steemit Inc is a traditional company in many ways and has just entered the blockchain space arbitrarily. Keeping a controlling stake in the hands of trusted investors, and likely the founders, is a very common setup and we shouldn't be surprised about it. Calling it a "pre-mine" doesn't really help that, I'm just using the accepted terminology here, but it's pretty normal.
It's not normal however for libertarian communities to do this, those who want to change the world ethically. I wonder if @dan found himself tiring of the traditional corporate structure, from what I see he's very idealistic. Many of the folks here are too, many you and I are.
Anyway, things are directed by Steemit Inc. Their leadership has navigated 19 hard forks and grown the community, making a massively valuable coin in the process. Of course this is the space to be to get lucky, but it's hard to truly make it, as you discuss in your post, longevity rests on technological coherence.
I think they should be more open about it: "yes, we've got a controlling stake and we aim to steer the ship, even against somewhat popular opinion." Nothing massively unpopular will get passed but many of the highest stakeholders already agree on many things before they happen, similar to how national politics works.
Steemit will not be the voluntryist utopia. But that doesn't mean it will fail. Here's the thing you miss in your post: smart, strong leadership can make projects succeed. Even unethical leaders can overcome the competition and make their business a success. We just have to see if we want to hitch ourselves to the rocket.
I anticipate at least 2 major forks in 2018. Not hard forks, but change of direction forks. Hold on to your butts! When SMTs hit things will change. And at any moment, as you say, they might just sell out.
I can't really disagree with anything you just said. I do want to address one thing tho.
I don't see any action that @ned has taken as unethical, and I don't want to leave that impression. Were I to discover he was selling votes secretly, or covertly leasing SP using stake he controlled, I'd probably have to question his ethics.
From what I have seen, I believe he has endeavored to uphold the highest ethical standards.
However, regarding ethics, I believe it is far easier to succeed to attain power without them. Indeed, I have come to believe that the least ethical competitors for power tend to seize it.
Right, I guess I did imply that perhaps he was an unethical leader when what I really wanted to suggest what that if they decided to make unethical choices it wouldn't mean they would result in Steem crashing.
So what I did want to imply that we do have strong, more or less centralized leadership, the thing I said before the unethical leader stuff. This is incompatible with the kind of anti-stake position you take for obvious reasons.
I can understand why you'd think that, while I completely disagree.
I don't think it would be at all unethical for the centralized leadership to sell their accounts.
They've never promised not to, and have no obligation to.
It's their stake.
Some folks think @ned isn't interested in money, as he has enough. I have enough too. Even I wouldn't turn down more, in the right circumstances.
I cannot predict what the right circumstances are for the centralized stake controlling the witnesses, and can have no confidence that their right circumstances aren't the worst for the success of the world's first voluntarist cryptocurrency based government.
There is no stake I wouldn't trade for that.
I didn't say that I did either. Read what I wrote carefully.
What I did say in a previous comment is that if they sold to Zuck then we'd be looking at some immediate forks.
I didn't mean to imply you did say that. I merely wanted to point out why centralized control of the blockchain was a potential problem, that would necessitate a fork and do-over from scratch, which I reckon most folks would prefer to avoid, because they'd lose the stakes they have.
I'd prefer to avoid it.
It's avoidable, and avoiding it doesn't require any redistribution of stake,
Isn't the data in Steemit our intellectual property? Or by posting are we selling our musings for Steem? That is important for me to understand if I'm going to keep posting.
The very fact that the government isn't stepping in and claiming that cryptocurrency is counterfeiting makes me think it's some sort of trap like the Internet. The Internet was designed to compile social data for analysis. It's done a bang-up job of that. Big Brother is now officially watching.
Blockchain technology is data compilation taken to the next level. Everything is recorded in perpetuity. I can hear the prosecuting attorney now saying, "Isn't it true Mr. Jones than in 2019 at 8:13 am GMT you answered a post by one Chang Mi, wherein you stated that..."
Yeah, I get it. Since blockchains can be conquered and forked any way you please simply by an infusion of fiat, perhaps that's the real reason it is allowed to develop, to get people used to using it the same way they now use plastic for every conceivable purchase instead of paper. Then, when it's time to take over, the conquest will be quick and effective. While the blockchain itself will be distributed, the control of the info contained therein will be controlled by a central authority.
Those financier Mofos aren't going to let their fiat baby drown in a sea of popular virtual currency. They're going to do whatever it takes to control it.
Well, anyone has access to the blockchain data Steemit generates. I'm not sure how fungible that is, but ZuckerBorg can access it now. Were he to buy the controlling stake requisite to forking, I just couldn't predict what limitations might be possible.
Ackshually, not all of them can. Steem is particularly amenable to simply being bought, whereas with BTC you'd need to either buy the miners, or make enough miners to constitute at least 34%, which can be enough to fork the chain. Most people think it takes 51% to fork BTC, but it has been shown mathematically to require only 34% in certain circumstances.
For Steem, because PoS (Proof of Stake, not any other identically spelled popular abbreviation), all that is necessary is to have enough Steem to control the top witnesses. While this is not easy for po' folk, it is for those who are excessively burdened with capital.
Well, it's not counterfeiting, which would be making fakes of extant fiat currencies. It's practically the same thing as Air Miles, or Rewards Points given out by your local retailer, which makes it kinda hard to separate from that herd legally.
I'm certain it's a trap. I'm amazed by those that trumpet cryptos as victory over banksters just because it's virtual. Banksters have dreamed of virtual currency since, well, ever. Indeed, most dollars have never been printed, and only exist virtually. Most fiat currency is just as virtual as BTC, about 90%, IIRC.
However, the sheer plethora of currencies is a bit out of bounds for C&C methods extant. Nexus illustrates how cryptos can get beyond regulatory grasp. They're gonna put up a swarm of cubesats that mine crypto beyond the legal jurisdiction of regulatory authorities, and create a new backbone for internetworking.
This is why I suspect that while a given crypto might be a trap, the thousands of them together might be a trap for the trappers, and millions, even billions, of cryptos may well be something beyond regulation.
Personally, I'm more interested in the post-market economy that will grow from non-point source production and the cessation of need for capital.
Can't regulate nothing! LOL
Thanks for clearing this up (a bit). I'm a real toady when it comes to imaginary stuff.
Are you referring to accepting crypto for goods and services as well as using 3-D printers at home rather than heading down to the big box store for your needed junk? Maybe you could link me to a page that explains this concept if you could. I'm having a hard time envisioning it. My poor brain is vintage 20th century. Thanks.
Both cryptocurrencies and 3D printing are steps on the path to a post-market economy.
I haven't produced such a page, and have neither looked for such, so cannot link anything to you. My own confidence in the eventuation of the death of capital is based solely on simply extrapolating from the present through what is being developed, to what will result.
I note that technology inevitably increases the power of the individual compared to groups. From fire and chipped rocks, to surveillance and the darpanet itself, technology improves the ability of individuals to undertake operations that were formerly impossible.
When I consider continuing advance in computers and communication, genetics and medicine, nanotechnology, 3D printing, power generation, etc., and how all these technologies concatenate, or will as such development progresses, I cannot help but note that at some point it will no longer be necessary to use capital.
There will be no need to buy or sell, to earn and pay, to attain necessary goods and services.
I refer to this eventual transformation as the post-market economy. While I concede I made it up based on speculation and extrapolation, I point out that I am not alone in doing so, and there are historical examples of progress that make it pretty obvious.
I predict no particular timeline, or path to the eventual death of capital, as such precision is far above my pay grade. Indeed, I ignore such details and try to work backwards from the eventual transformed society to develop ideas and means of developing it.
It is this that informs the bulk of my posts regarding Steemit, in fact. I believe Steemit is very close to a mechanism that can give people the necessary ability to conduct transactions and value others' work, without being dependent on economic necessity.
None of us will starve if we don't get upvotes. Steemit doesn't produce goods, cars, or homes. All of those things will be produced, eventually, by completely automated systems that require no capital. Steemit is a way for people to interact in the ways we have evolved in a pre-automated production environment that profitably benefits society through our natural behaviours.
Dunno if that clears anything up at all, really =p
Edit: I feel I was imprecise regarding Steemit. It CAN be a mechanism that potentiates global commerce in a post-market economy, but first it has to be unfucked. It's presently mostly a way for flashminers to profit from the stakes they hold.
It's potential is limited thereby.
This sort of reminds me of how atomic power was going to make electricity so abundant and cheap that it would be virtually free.
My dad built a house in 1956. It was a "Gold Medallion" house. There were no building codes in those days, but he spared no expense. It had insulated walls, stucco on the inside walls as well as the out. All of the lumber that went into it was treated. It was green, embalmed in cuprinol to keep termites from eating it. But the most modern feature was that it was all electric. It had heating coils embedded in the ceiling. You could dial each room's temperature independently. The house at Tomorrow Land in Disneyland wasn't much more advanced.
I haven't had a utility bill in a dozen years. I remember when the boys at Enron ripped us off. My electric bill went from $75 one month to $275 the next. I also believe that there is now a fee tacked on for "nuclear decomissioning."
So I'm not holding my breath when it comes to technological innovations that will make us freer. Of course, I make a Luddite look like an astronaut. I've been wrong before. (that was the time I thought I was wrong) ;D