Here is the proposed definition (and instruction to voters) of the meaning of an upvote and downvote for the project Webrary (intended to be an improvement over Steem) I am now developing. I want to vet this with y'all, since I am designing the internal algorithms around these. Note Webrary won't be the final name, but I can't mention the final one since don't own the .com domain yet. Like Steem/Steemit there will be separate names for the blockchain/UI respectively. The former name is similar to Webrary, and the latter one is more catchy and has more mass appeal than Steemit.
Voting is the way you control the rankings of the future content you will see. An upvote or downvote is not a weapon to express agreement nor disagreement, nor to judge the value of the content to the overall project. Rather it should reflect whether you personally want to continue to be exposed to content (and the community it engenders) similar to the content you are voting on. An upvote or downvote will not cause the ranking of the content to change for voters who disagree with your content preferences. If you vote for political objectives intending to suppress or enhance visibility of the content for others and not for your preferences, then the type of content visible to you will become a groupthink monotone that fools you into believing everyone agrees with you, while others who disagree with you will continue to see the diversity of content that interests them. Indecision on your part should be reflected in a non-vote. Unlike Steem, voting remains open indefinitely and there is no curation penalty for voting later, so you may vote later once you've made up your mind.
Steemians are realizing I was correct: The meaning of downvote has to change to "I don't want to read content and ensuring discussion like this". It needs to be a personal relevance tool, not a globalized ranking. I am working on this change. |
|
|
|
What does that post have to do with copyrights? The poster (a semi-well-known community member) claims to be the photographer. Do you know otherwise? How are you going to enforce his copyright on every UI creator? Programmers getting sued for not incorporating blacklists into their software. This will destroy the fungibility of the content. The only restrictions must be encoded into the blockchain and they must be something that can actually be performed with code w.r.t. to the UI software's liability. I don't think it is reasonable that only links will be stored on the blockchain and UI are not free to cache the images. What happens to the blockchain when those links stop functioning. We end with a lot of crap content on the blockchain with all external media lost. There is a dilemma that needs to the solved if possible. Copyrighted media is going to limit what people can build on top of the data. It is a pita. My stance is leaning towards don't publish to the blockchain if you want to retain copyright. Copyright is a major inhibitor of the coming knowledge age. We need to scrap it. Remember from our recent agreement on chatting being paramount, that the value is in the interactivity, not in the static content. The knowledge creation is ongoing in the networking. |
|
|
|
Any way, I think I have thought of a solution for DE. The key is to identify the attacker immediately so that all decentralized parties can apply my upthread blocking "Coin Days Destroyed" suggestion. The "Coin Days Destroyed" becomes the reference point that is signed by the owner of the resource, which thus apparently escapes from my generative essence conceptualization of the problem set. So change to the protocol is the provider of the hash sends to the trade's counter party to sign it (hashed with the other party's UXTO address) so the counter party's UXTO can be identified. Then the hash provider (the potential jamming victim) posts this information in a timed refundable transaction to the block chain (spending to the payee contingent on releasing the hash). If the attacker never posts the reciprocal transaction on the other block chain, this enables anyone to identify that attacker and apply the Coin Days Destroyed filtering that I proposed upthread. Note this eliminates the need for any fee. But I assume you can find some justification for a fee, such as perhaps keeping your source code for the DE app closed source and/or offering a centralized fee structure for matching orders, limit orders, etc.. You won't be able to steal funds, which afaik is the most significant advantage of DE over CE. One way I contemplated is to have both parties sign the intention to trade, then they post it to this block chain. However, one might sign and the other might not, thus jamming the other party (in terms of computing the signature and the communication latency between the two parties). Also worse is that one party might sign more than one intention to trade or inadvertently do so if the attacker didn't sign immediately but later signed and published it to this block chain.
For example, an attacker could sign an intent to trade, but if I don't acknowledge it, then I would be implicated as the attacker. But if I sign an intent to trade and the attacker doesn't acknowledge it, then the attacker isn't implicated. So either way, it is flawed and doesn't solve the jamming problem that makes DEX (decentralized exchange between blockchains) implausible.
Bitshares' OpenLedger is decentralized exchange on the same blockchain employing pegged assets, but that is not equivalent (for one reason being that pegged assets do not precisely track the value of the asset they are supposedly pegged to).
I have devised another methodology for DEX which relies on selecting a mutual trusted party which cryptographically can't steal nor lockup the funds. This is a compromise between centralized exchanges (which can steal/lose funds) and purely DEX which can be jammed. jl777 is aware of the algorithm I have in mind. |
|
|
|
I earned about $1300 from a couple of posts on steemit last week, I still have absolutely no idea where the money comes from, other than guessing its in the "locked" up funds in everyones steem power, hence why you cant sell for 2 years.
I exchanged every bit i could on Poloniex and have about $700 of steem power.
If i intend to sell this, do i have to wait 2 years first and then sell, or do i have to initiate the sale now and it will unlock automatically in 2 years time?
Perhaps it will be worth big $$$ then? Who knows? It depends if this thing takes off more than facebook or not.
You choose the "Power Down" option in the wallet. That initiates automatic weekly transactions (starting 7 days from the time you choose the option) which will each liquidate 1/104 of your Steem Power, turning it into STEEM (which can then be sold on an exchange). During that time your Steem Power will continue to grow in value of STEEMs (market value of course is unpredictable) so the weekly payments will be increasing amounts of STEEM. If you earn more Steem Power, and you want to cash that out too, you have to restart the power down to use the new amount. Otherwise only the original amount will be liquidated over two years. It is apparently also possible to cancel a power down at any time in the future. |
|
|
|
I agree with the OP, but on the other hand, the demand for "the world computer" is essentially over. The true platform for that is closer to ETC than to the ETH spreadsheet as you say, but I think that none of it is in demand. Or maybe tiny contracts to lend out a bike :-)
Don't presume that some clever developers won't see a huge opportunity and capitalize on it. I'd be long ETC if I was investing in crypto-currencies. |
|
|
|
My understanding is that Bitcoins can be traced or otherwise identified, so why couldn't these 120,000 BTC be "banned" by all the exchanges based on some criteria or the identity of the coins that were stolen?
I suppose that those coins went already into other currencies (maybe etc, if you look at the traded volumes yesterday). This simply went too fast to react on it in any way. And I do not think that any exchange would willingly reject coins they can make profit with. Any exchange which attempts to destroy the fungibility of Bitcoin, will be ostracized. |
|
|
|
I don't think the non-BTC accounts are protected. Even if they were also segregated accounts, the bankrupty of Bitfinex should view all segregrated accounts in equal legal standing, thus they all must suffer proportionally.
The theft is Bitfinex's liability.
So all non-BTC accounts on Bitfinex should be affected proportionally. I presume Bitfinex will eventually realize this. Unless law is somehow different in Hong Kong.
I presume the knee-jerk selloff of BTC is an overreaction. Bitfinex still has significant resources, so everyone on Bitfinex should probably get a loss but not a total loss.
Yes. The sell off is an overreaction. But the problem is there is no buying demand in bitcoins recently so I speculate we will not see this quickly move up above $600 for now. What do you think? Yes we will. The pumpers are still in control. They are bigger then a few hundred k btc. But the price of bitcoin was already not going higher anymore before the hack. It was already weakening because there was already a lack in demand. Now the miners will have no choice but to sell more of their mining earnings and savings because of the lower price and the halving of their rewards. This is of course only speculation. What about those cashing out of the ETC rise? Where can that amount of money go next? Don't tell me Steem as it has insufficient volume and it will debase you 100% over the next several months, unless you power up and commit to 1 year cash out weighted window. Synereo says they have a launch coming in September, but that can't absorb all those funds can it? Everything plummeting except for ETC: http://coinmarketcap.com/I do not understand where rise will fit in. In my mind the miners will sell bitcoins for fiat in order to maintain mining operations. Since the price is now lower and the mining reward is halved the miners will now have to sell more bitcoins in the market making it hard for it to come back above $600. It is because the bitcoin price rise was already weakening and it was time for it to go down. It would have still gotten down if the hack did not happen. Just an opinion. Post halving the marginal miners will eventually have to give up (although there can be some selling pressure until they do), so we will end up with a lower cost per BTC for miners, thus less financial need to sell. Also half the coins are being minted. If the Chinese mining farms can operate coordinated, they can effectively profit by driving volatility as r0ach explained, so selling is not in their interest (much better to hold and play with the volatility): https://steemit.com/blockchain/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-2-bitcoin-happenings-and-ethereum-rough-consensus-attack |
|
|
|
As long as you remain factual and don't repeat the nonsense about the forward stock splits being a loss of value, then I will support your factual posts such as this one.
The concept of stock splits make sense for a real share in a company but for a currency it's nonsense. Thank you ! I am sooooo sick of fucking hearing people compare the two.. it's a massive crock of shit ! If the rules are encoded in the blockchain, then what is the salient distinction from any other rule encoded in the blockchain? So minting new coins is also a crock of shit? I agree that the stock split is a pita and a stupid decision decision ostensibly motivated by saving a couple of bytes for each amount in a transaction, but it does not affect the value of the currency at all (at least not in terms of proportion of the market capitalization, although one might argue that it will be chaotic and cause irrational price fluctuation). If you are going to criticize Steem, there are much more egregious weaknesses you can enumerate than this weak-ass shit argument. |
|
|
|
The law exists and it can be used to attempt to fight against the immutability of the blockchain.
The salient difference between a hard fork and the use of the law, is we all know a priori that the law is a factor. Whereas, a priori we don't want to add the risk of hard forks to change the rules AFTER THE FACT arbitrarily.
Hard forks could change anything and everything retroactively. The entire blockchain becomes an issue of trust, which is pointless. Just go back to fiat (centralized control) systems.
Should the law enforcers catch the DAO hacker and punish her as she breaks any kind of law in the land? If they can (legally and practically) and they do, then they did. We'll see... But I don't see any relevance of that to hard forking what was supposed to be a decentralized blockchain that nobody controls or owns. If you want to introduce politics to blockchains, then please understand the Iron Law of Political Economics guarantees you will have a fiat system. |
|
|
|
As long as you remain factual and don't repeat the nonsense about the forward stock splits being a loss of value, then I will support your factual posts such as this one.
The concept of stock splits make sense for a real share in a company but for a currency it's nonsense. Incorrect. Everyone who owns a unit of STEEM or SP, gets x times more units. If the price drops by x, then everyone has the same value they had before the forward split. Come on man, this is elementary school math. Give me one example of a currency that gets reverse splitted? This shit doesn't work in real life Currencies do get revalued, and I think Zimbabwe did this not too long ago after their bout of hyperinflation. Can someone elucidate that? But yeah, splitting a currency sounds fucking retarded. I am repeating this definition for the retards who failed elementary school math: What is a 'Stock Split'
A corporate action in which a company divides its existing shares into multiple shares. Although the number of shares outstanding increases by a specific multiple, the total dollar value of the shares remains the same compared to pre-split amounts, because the split did not add any real value. The most common split ratios are 2-for-1 or 3-for-1, which means that the stockholder will have two or three shares for every share held earlier.
Also known as a "forward stock split."
Do you all realize how frustrating it is correct your lazy mistakes over and over and over and over and over again. Come on guys, how about at least thinking and researching a bit before you repeat the same misinformation over and over and over again. Parroting it between each other, like dumb ass ducks. How about you guys show your appreciation by being the ones to correct the others that will make the same mistake. That responsibility shouldn't always rest on my (or smooth's) shoulders. He even tried to explain this to magicalacademy last week, but magicalacademy continues to not comprehend a stock split. How can investors make good decisions here if they are always fed misinformation. Please try to be factual. I agree with some of magicalacademy's stance about Steem being a dubious investment. But he is being lazy with his analysis. He is using his predisposed opinion to distort statements. If he wants to be taken seriously, he should make only factual statements and at least admit and correct his errors in fact. I understand the dislike of Steem and the wish to see it fail. But for that to happen, requires not lying to ourselves, so that we know the true weaknesses and not deluding ourselves with imagined weaknesses that don't exist. |
|
|
|
|
The law exists and it can be used to attempt to fight against the immutability of the blockchain.
The salient difference between a hard fork and the use of the law, is we all know a priori that the law is a factor. Whereas, a priori we don't want to add the risk of hard forks to change the rules AFTER THE FACT arbitrarily.
Hard forks could change anything and everything retroactively. The entire blockchain becomes an issue of trust, which is pointless. Just go back to fiat (centralized control) systems.
|
|
|
|
You are free to believe that someone who has been downvoted to oblivion in the past has the "right" to have his posts visible to everyone, so please make an alternative to steemit.com(now that they opensourced the code) and offer to the "uneducated masses" the oportunity to view all those "quality"/crapy/spamy posts that "evil" Dan is hiding from them!
I do think it would be better if individual users had the ability to control the rules and thresholds for hiding, add exceptions, etc. Maybe that can be added later. +1 There is always room for impovements/fine tunning In my opinion, a key factor is making that happen automatically like magic, not some manual tsuris that the user has to maintain. Cognitive load on the user is a big factor in good design. I won't bother to mention why I think Steem's design can't accomplish that and why I think I can, because again that will just be another motivation to attack me. So it is better I didn't even respond any more, which I think is what I will do. So that smooth can't tell me that defending myself against abuse is not appropriate. So end of discussion. Hope that makes you happy. |
|
|
|
I speculate that this recent price will not hold. Some traders will take profit at the first sign that there will be weakness. It has moved up very quickly and it makes it unstable because the buy support cannot catch up.
I speculate it won't stop until everyone has sold their ETH for ETC. This will accelerate as more and more idiots realize that if they don't sell ETH, they will lose all. Fools are slow to act until they panic at the end. Also you are underestimating the power of bull run vortex on crypto speculators. Crypto speculators tend to dive headfirst into opportunities to make a quick 300% gain. ETH has no future because Vitalik proved the blockchain can't be trusted. If we want blockchains to remain immutable, ETC must win. I think Bitcoin supporters will make sure ETC wins against ETH. I think the DAO benefactor hacker is likely profiting big time on leveraged ETH shorts, while being leveraged long on ETC. So he can use proceeds to drive the price the direction he wants, while never needing to actually cash out of ETC. Bitcoin investors would love to see ETC kill ETH. And if they can make money doing that, then it is a nobrainer. But there is an equivalent number of ETC in the Ethereum foundation's premine of ETH. Don't you think Vitalik will once again make a desperate move to save the fork by dumping all the ETC they can potentially have and buy ETH with it? My estimated guess is he is naive but not that dumb (to think he can fight the market with certainty). Remember he did diversify and sold 25% of his ETH, having learned from holding BTC all the way down in 2014/5. And if he does, then it will just be Vitalik destroying himself at the end, while the other fools have one more chance to sell ETH to Vitalik so he is left holding the bag.  That is unless Vitalik can work some of his mesmerizing magic with his words, somehow deluding a large swath of people that he can create something for ETH that would justify the loss of immutability trustlessness of the blockchain. I don't think he can any more. He has played that card already. ETC can copy any open source improvements worth having. Some mETH heads might be thinking Ethereum is leaderless if Vitalik loses this battle, but I don't think ETC investors care. Speculators want to make a buck and if they can enforce correct ideology as well, all for the better. Perhaps some fresh opportunities for others to contribute on the concept of smart blockchains might spawn some new innovation that Vitalik et al didn't accomplish in 2 years. They were given $millions to play with and so it isn't like they didn't get theirs or weren't given every opportunity to perform. I am hoping Vitalik will capitulate and join ETC and in more of a subservient (as in serving and honorable) role to the community. That would be the best outcome I think. The correct ideology would win, Vitalik would grow up, etc.. P.S. I am assuming the financial back of the price manipulator behind ETH will be broken. If that is not the case, then I guess we could ride a yoyo seesaw. I think perhaps this manipulator is hedging his options. |
|
|
|
I speculate that this recent price will not hold. Some traders will take profit at the first sign that there will be weakness. It has moved up very quickly and it makes it unstable because the buy support cannot catch up.
I speculate it won't stop until everyone has sold their ETH for ETC. This will accelerate as more and more idiots realize that if they don't sell ETH, they will lose all. Fools are slow to act until they panic at the end. Also you are underestimating the power of bull run vortex on crypto speculators. Crypto speculators tend to dive headfirst into opportunities to make a quick 300% gain. ETH has no future because Vitalik proved the blockchain can't be trusted. If we want blockchains to remain immutable, ETC must win. I think Bitcoin supporters will make sure ETC wins against ETH. I think the DAO benefactor hacker is likely profiting big time on leveraged ETH shorts, while being leveraged long on ETC. So he can use proceeds to drive the price the direction he wants, while never needing to actually cash out of ETC. Bitcoin investors would love to see ETC kill ETH. And if they can make money doing that, then it is a nobrainer. |
|
|
|
I don't think the non-BTC accounts are protected. Even if they were also segregated accounts, the bankrupty of Bitfinex should view all segregrated accounts in equal legal standing, thus they all must suffer proportionally.
The theft is Bitfinex's liability.
So all non-BTC accounts on Bitfinex should be affected proportionally. I presume Bitfinex will eventually realize this. Unless law is somehow different in Hong Kong.
I presume the knee-jerk selloff of BTC is an overreaction. Bitfinex still has significant resources, so everyone on Bitfinex should probably get a loss but not a total loss.
Yes. The sell off is an overreaction. But the problem is there is no buying demand in bitcoins recently so I speculate we will not see this quickly move up above $600 for now. What do you think? Yes we will. The pumpers are still in control. They are bigger then a few hundred k btc. But the price of bitcoin was already not going higher anymore before the hack. It was already weakening because there was already a lack in demand. Now the miners will have no choice but to sell more of their mining earnings and savings because of the lower price and the halving of their rewards. This is of course only speculation. What about those cashing out of the ETC rise? Where can that amount of money go next? Don't tell me Steem as it has insufficient volume and it will debase you 100% over the next several months, unless you power up and commit to 1 year cash out weighted window. Synereo says they have a launch coming in September, but that can't absorb all those funds can it? Everything plummeting except for ETC: http://coinmarketcap.com/ |
|
|
|
When Mt Gox failed, it took us almost 1-2 years to recover. However, this time round the impact will be smaller. I guess it will take 1-2 months.
Mt. Gox was > 90% of the BTC volume at that time. Bitfinex is not that significant. Relax. Don't panic. |
|
|
|
I don't think the non-BTC accounts are protected. Even if they were also segregated accounts, the bankrupty of Bitfinex should view all segregrated accounts in equal legal standing, thus they all must suffer proportionally.
The theft is Bitfinex's liability.
So all non-BTC accounts on Bitfinex should be affected proportionally. I presume Bitfinex will eventually realize this. Unless law is somehow different in Hong Kong.
I presume the knee-jerk selloff of BTC is an overreaction. Bitfinex still has significant resources, so everyone on Bitfinex should probably get a loss but not a total loss.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
