Sorry but the Steemit culture makes me want to vomit:
I don't think there's something like a uniform steemit culture. Everyone writes their own stuff. Does this represent the whole? Of course not. I am talking about what gets upvoted to large payouts, is a lot of weak ass shit. Someone wrote about monogamy, you wrote something else about it, both got paid good. It wasn't thaaaat one-sided. |
|
|
|
Sorry but the Steemit culture makes me want to vomit:
I don't think there's something like a uniform steemit culture. Everyone writes their own stuff. Does this represent the whole? Of course not. |
|
|
|
Where's the fucking upvote button when you need it?  |
|
|
|
LOL could you post a picture?  I, too, was driving around and saw a billboard. And, you, too, can see it and more via driving around Google images. Owners are probably selling to pay for advertisement. Price will continue to tank for a while until enough blogging could sustain 100% inflation built into STEEM. No guarantee that this saving event could happen. I find it that 100% POS inflation is a slap in the face to any serious investor considering this coin at this time. Traders get 100% inflation. Serious investors (Steem Power) only ~10%. |
|
|
|
I have a beginner (or idiot?) question, does Steem store articles in their blockchain or in an SQL database?
on the blockchain To clarify, the text of articles and comments is on the blockchain. Any embedded media is stored as links. This makes the storage requirements not absurd, as most times the text itself is fairly small. In theory it is highly compressible too, though I'm not sure if the current implementation does that. I tried a few compression schemes on the blockchain a few days ago (blockchain size ~2gb). Results showed a reduction to 0.8gb -1.1gb, depending the compression scheme (tried lrzip, bzip2, gzip - lrzip had the biggest savings but it's also the slowest, gzip less compression but fastest). That indicates to me the content is probably not being compressed, or the transaction encoding is pretty loose (most transactions are votes), or both. That's a pretty high compression ratio for a blockchain considering that signatures and hashes aren't compressible. I guess that leaves room for improvement in the future. Definitely not compressed... https://steemit.com/steemit/@alexgr/have-you-ever-wondered-what-your-post-looks-like-while-stored-in-the-steem-blockchain |
|
|
|
I'd assume original content would be content that has been augmented in a large degree so it serves another purpose (who can rely-on/define novelty?), or that actually has expressed something that has never been expressed before (the former creative and sometimes unique, the latter genius and art--which of course has the former by necessity).
In a way, each human is a unique prism which refracts light in a different way, and thus is always able to generate original content. But in the context of the platform, the use of original content is more about avoiding ...copy/paste from others, from news sites, etc etc. When I say advertiser's presence, I mean (for the most part) something akin to a facebook page, but in steemit's case it would be a dedicated blogger/avatar--this is what I'm waiting/watching for.
..aha.. One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x  I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed. The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me. How many people are actually signing up (and then bailing)? I've seen some numbers cited from Anonymint and another guy who wrote an article and was citing anonymint - don't even remember the precise numbers but they weren't looking very good. The ratios were as far as I remember >60% and inactive accounts were a large percentage. I still believe rather strongly that most of the signups are scammers. I believe this more strongly after looking at the account names being created.
Yeah the other day there was this ad (as a post inside steem) about one guy controlling 800 ids and growing, selling upvotes... who knows how many of them exist... It is on my agenda to analyze the blockchain to come up with better metrics for things like people starting to blog and then quitting. Bout time... Most people can't blog, and never will be able to blog, and never will earn a lot under any reasonably conceivable system, but the successful bloggers who have joined don't seem to quit, and as long as they are still blogging, their readers are still reading. That may be partially a function of unsustainable early adopter rewards though.
Indeed most people won't. I'm not worried about them too much... I am more worried about those that can offer something and feel that it's not getting the attention ($$$) it should and that the system is broken or that inconsistent rewards+small payouts+non residual income (if bloggers multiply) is not worth it. We'll see how it goes... From my part I did what I had to: I proposed a system that can increase long-term viability by serving ads to non-registered members. (Registered / logged-in member experience doesn't change). I believe it'll be hard to come up with some kind of formula that is better than that. It's not a pressing issue, for sure, but it changes the market fundamentals if implemented. |
|
|
|
Eννοείται ότι το 0 ήταν σχήμα λόγου. Αν η τιμή του steemit πέφτει συνέχεια και συνεχώς τυπώνονται νέα, ποιος ο λόγος να αγοράσει κάποιος steemit? Οπότε είναι προφανές ότι το όλο μοντέλο είναι ξεκάθαρα βραχυπρόθεσμο, αν δεν εισέρχεται χρήμα δεν θα μοιράζεται και χρήμα στους wannabe συγγραφείς ενώ θα κατρακυλήσει νομοτελειακά και το steemit dollar.
Ο μονος λογος να αγορασεις steem ειναι να το κανεις ...steem power. Τοτε ο ρυθμος του πληθωρισμου δεν ειναι ιδιος γιατι το 90% των χρηματων που τυπωνονται παντα πανε σε οσους εχουν steem power. Εστω οτι αγορασες 10 steem και οτι το δικτυο εχει 1000 steem/steem power κτλ. Σε ενα χρονο θα εχεις παλι 10 steem αν τα κρατησεις σε steem, ενω θα εχεις 19 steem power αν τα κανεις steem power και ο πληθωρισμος τρεχει στο 100% (εσυ παιρνεις το 90% απ'αυτον). Το steem dollar δεν απειλειται παρα μονο αν η αξια του steem καταρρευσει σε ασυλληπτα επιπεδα. |
|
|
|
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed. The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me. Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators? Even a genuine comment can be original content creation. So it's hard to quantify (and I don't even have the metrics to do so)... Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
For the time being the assumption is no ads, so... |
|
|
|
Πως ακριβώς θα λειτουργήσει το ανωτέρω μοντέλο όταν πέφτει η ισοτιμία του steem (όπως τις 3 τελευταίες μέρες) ? Θα τυπώσουν και άλλα μέχρι η αξία να φτάσει 0? Η τιμη δε μπορει να φθασει ποτε 0. Ουτε νουμερα που τεινουν στο μηδεν. Γιατι αμα γινονταν κατι τετοιο τοτε απλα θα εδινα 10$ να αγορασω ολες τις "μετοχες" του steem. Και ας ηταν και αχρηστες. Οπότε δημιουργουνται τετοια παραδοξα σε μεγαλες καθοδους οπου η χαμηλη αξια δεν επιτρεπει τη μηδενικη αξια. Εδω υπαρχουν πραγματικα shitcoins, αχρηστα τελειως, που το marketcap τους δε πεφτει κατω απο 6ψηφια ή 5ψηφια νουμερα με τιποτα. |
|
|
|
I have a beginner (or idiot?) question, does Steem store articles in their blockchain or in an SQL database?
on the blockchain To clarify, the text of articles and comments is on the blockchain. Any embedded media is stored as links. This makes the storage requirements not absurd, as most times the text itself is fairly small. In theory it is highly compressible too, though I'm not sure if the current implementation does that. I tried a few compression schemes on the blockchain a few days ago (blockchain size ~2gb). Results showed a reduction to 0.8gb -1.1gb, depending the compression scheme (tried lrzip, bzip2, gzip - lrzip had the biggest savings but it's also the slowest, gzip less compression but fastest). |
|
|
|
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed. The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me. |
|
|
|
αρα σε περίπτωση πώλησης μεγάλου πακέτου steem θα έχουμε μεγαλύτερη αύξηση της παραγωγής των steem ώστε να καλύψουν την ισοτιμία των steem dollar?
Ναι, καπως ετσι. Και σε αυτή την περίπτωση έχουμε την βεβαιότητα ότι θα μπει σε ένα σπιράλ υπερπληθωρισμού δλδ στο να κόβεις χρήμα ώστε να καλύψεις την ισοτιμία.
Αφενος γι'αυτο το bulk των STEEM ειναι locked σε STEEM POWER γιατι το STEEM POWER διατηρει το 90% της αξιας σε σχεση με τον τρεχον πληθωρισμο. Νομιζω το 95+% των steem ειναι σε steem power. Αφετερου ηδη υπαρχουν σκεψεις για εναλλακτικα μετρα σε περιπτωση που τα steem dollars φθασουν το 20% του marketcap του steem (τωρα ειναι ~1%, που ειναι πολυ ασφαλες) οπως αυτοματη μετατροπη τους σε steem power. Γενικα τα κινητρα και αντικινητρα θα ρυθμιζονται συνεχεια για να καλυπτουν τυχον προβληματα. Ειναι η λογικη του duct tape... οταν το θεωρητικο design εχει τρυπες, απλα το patchαρεις στη συνεχεια. Σε βαθος χρονου μπορει να μην εχεις την πιο καθαρη λυση που υπαρχει, αλλα ακομα και με 800 μπαλωματα μπορει να παιζει. Απ'το να μη το χεις καθολου το συστημα, καλυτερα να το φτιαξεις και να παιζει εστω και με μπαλωματα. |
|
|
|
η ισοτιμία 1 δολαρίου με ένα steem dollar σε τι βασίζεται μπορείς να μου πεις? Πως δένεις ένα crypto token με μια τέτοια ισοτιμία χωρίς να καταρρεύσει?
Εχει ενα feed τιμων απο 19 "witnesses" το οποιο δινει στο "συστημα" τις τιμες του bitcoin/usd και steem/btc. Αυτες οι τιμες μετα τις χρησιμοποιει το συστημα σε 7-day average για να βρει ποσα steem χρειαζονται για να βγει ενα steem dollar. Αυτη τη στιγμη το feed δινει state feed_price base 1.481 SBD quote 1.000 STEEM ...δλδ το 1 steem κανει 1.481 steem dollars (ή 0.675 steem per steem dollars). Τι σημαινει αυτο... οτι αν εσυ πχ εχεις 100 steem dollars και πατησεις convert, θα παρεις περιπου 67.5 steem. Που αυτα ειναι περιπου κοντα στα 60κατι δολαρια πραγματικα. Αν η τιμη του steem ειναι ανοδικη μπορει το feed επειδη εχει delay 7 ημερων, να πληρωνεσαι >1$ (σε steem) για καθε steem dollar ενω αμα ειναι πτωτικη μπορει να πληρωνεσαι <1$. Παντως, μακροπροθεσμα, η τιμη θα παιζει εκει κοντα στο 1 προς 1, +/- 15%. Αν κανουν το feed avg 3ημερο η αποκλιση θα μειωθει κι'αλλο. Γενικα ο μηχανισμος συνοψιζεται στο οτι θα τυπωθουν οσα steem χρειαζονται για να παρεις στα χερια σου το αντιστοιχο του 1$ για καθε steem-backed dollar. Αυτο γινεται αφου το συστημα γνωριζει τα 2 απαραιτητα ratio (steem/btc και btc/usd) για να κανει τον υπολογισμο. |
|
|
|
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x |
|
|
|
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/steem-dollar-stability-enhancements#@alexgr/re-dantheman-steem-dollar-stability-enhancements-20160820t180419652zFeedback Wanted
If anyone has any concerns or has better solutions in mind please let us know.
I have some long-term stability feedback that may be useful. One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. If marketcap goes only 10x (up to 2bn USD) when userbase goes 1000x, the average reward will be 100 times smaller. This is a serious issue that penalizes growth. Now the question is how can one make a successful system when it is penalized by its own growth. The growth has to be working in the system's favor. On top of that there is the issue of residual income that has been discussed recently where authors desire that income must continue beyond the 30 days. Now in a scaling scenario where our userbase is 100x or 1000x, and the reward pool is already insufficient to cover daily rewards, how can one then take from that same reward pool to generate revenue for the older content? It seems impossible. I was doing some thinking on it and I believe I have cracked the issue of both long-term viability and residual income through an ad-based scheme that breaks the closed-loop economy. One of the main promises of steemit is that there is no advertising. This promise can be kept: For its registered members. I believe a lot of the traffic, if not most of the traffic (pageviews), that will be generated in the future will not be by the members themselves but by external viewers who arrive to read something without being registered members. We could have 10mn members and 1bn non-members getting some kind of article to see here at one time or another. The interface for non-registered members will have ads generating revenue. This revenue will sustain both the price of the currency, the reward pool and even residual income. In fact upvotes on old content may be paid exclusively through the ad-revenue generated by ad-views from non-registered members, instead of the reward pool for the 30-day period. In this way a) Registered members enjoy an ad-free experience and the promise for such an experience is kept b) Non-registered members see ads and generate ad-revenue through their millions/billions of page views, but they are also incentivized to join for free if they want to have an ad-free experience c) Ad revenue can help reward scaling which currently seems doomed in the long-term d) Ad revenue can help residual income-level which currently seems even more doomed in the long-term e) The currency is supported by inflows outside the closed loop.
|
|
|
|
|
Το yours δεν μπορει να αποτελεσει ανταγωνιστη για το steem. Στο yours πληρωνεις απ'τη τσεπη σου αυτον που θελεις να κανεις tip. Δλδ διαβαζεις 100 ποστ και δινεις πχ 1 σεντ σε 10 ποστ που σου αρεσαν. Ετσι δε βγαινουν λεφτα. Στο steem δε το φοβασαι το upvote για τον απλουστατο λογο οτι τα λεφτα δεν βγαινουν ακριβως απ'τη τσεπη σου αλλα απ'το reward pool που ειναι fixed.
Επισης απ'οτι βλεπω τα offchain data του yours ειναι centralized:
Payment channels require a messaging layer outside the blockchain. With a normal bitcoin wallet, Carol can receive a payment from Bob by passively monitoring the blockchain. With a micropayment solution based on payment channels, Carol and Bob have to have a two-way communications channel. This comes with at least three additional challenges: 1) There has to be a notion of user authentication, so that Carol and Bob can be sure they are talking with the right person, 2) There has to be a messaging protocol about what data to exchange and in what order and what to do when things go wrong, 3) Carol and Bob both have to be online in order for a payment to proceed from being unpaid to being paid. We are solving these problems by, 1) Making our own user authentication system based on BIP 32 keys, 2) Making a new messaging system based on signed (ECDSA), encrypted (ECIES) messages between users (stored on our server for now, but which can be moved to a distributed system like IPFS at a later date), 3) informing users to come online when necessary to finish sending or receiving a payment (this may be better solved in the future with a mobile app that occasionally checks for micropayments tasks for perform).
L O L
|
|
|
|
The Dash instamine of 2014 matters only to the Monero community, who feel threatened by Dash when they see Dash growing and growing like that.
You can even see when they feel threatened, its mostly on times Dash is rising in price when they feel pressed to bump this thread. ..v Lets face it, the Dash instamine doesn't matter, this thread doesn't matter and people posting in this thread don't matter
(and yes, that includes me).
Not true, if you read dash thread you will see I was there at the beginning to mine and he screwed on 2 failed launches until he got his instamine right. So try to keep your fact straight and don't try to rewrite history on these boards. says the person heavily involved in the Monero community  thanks for just proving my point. Well i'm done wasting any more energy on this thread, you can all bump it all you want .. it just doesn't matter. I have not held any XMR for 3 months. check my posts. I am completely open about my crypto. Any reasons in particular why you sold? |
|
|
|
|
Yes I don't see how it can scale. The only flaw I can find in my argument is that "userbase" is not necessarily the same as "authors", so if you have 50k users and 50mn users it doesn't mean the paid authors go up x1000. They could be "scaling" in a non-linear fashion compared to "ordinary readers" (kind of like the numbers from medium.com). Of course the avg income per user is still going down.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
