---

If one is holding SP, you are I suppose betting that Steemit will manage some transition either to be acquired by another social network at some valuation per signed up user, or that Steemit will be able to develop an income model. We've seen that estimates of revenue per user from advertising for Facebook average around $15 per user per year.

So with a million signed up users, this will be $15 million annual income from advertising, so with a 20 P/E ratio then roughly a $300 million market cap (7.5% x $300m = $15 million divided by million users = $15 per user per year in payouts+curator rewards). At 3000 signups per day, they project a million signups (costing $10 per signup at least not including payouts) within 4 months.

But it is also not clear what the retention rate is given users on average won't earn that much from the site, and especially after the number of bloggers reach million users with only a $300 million market cap. In other words, at some realistic P/E ratio, then the payouts have to drop dramatically which means the usership might not be sticky, which then means the market cap valuation must be lower. And that begins the downward spiral because as market cap falls, then payouts fall, so usership should fall. Circling the toilet bowl all the way down.

Does anyone see any way this outcome can be averted? The math seems to show there is no way this can work out.


So $20 per day incentivizes you to spend some of your time on that site. How many minutes a day you spend to earn that $20? (Readers note that he is a college student)

Will you stay when that drops to $20 per year per my calculations above?

---

If one is holding SP, you are I suppose betting that Steemit will manage some transition either to be acquired by another social network at some valuation per signed up user, or that Steemit will be able to develop an income model. We've seen that estimates of revenue per user from advertising for Facebook average around $15 per user per year.

So with a million signed up users, this will be $15 million annual income from advertising, so with a 20 P/E ratio then roughly a $300 million market cap (7.5% x $300m = $15 million divided by million users = $15 per user per year in payouts+curator rewards). At 3000 signups per day, they project a million signups (costing $10 per signup at least not including payouts) within 4 months.

But it is also not clear what the retention rate is given users on average won't earn that much from the site, and especially after the number of bloggers reach million users with only a $300 million market cap. In other words, at some realistic P/E ratio, then the payouts have to drop dramatically which means the usership might not be sticky, which then means the market cap valuation must be lower. And that begins the downward spiral because as market cap falls, then payouts fall, so usership should fall. Circling the toilet bowl all the way down.

Does anyone see any way this outcome can be averted? The math seems to show there is no way this can work out.


So $20 per day incentivizes you to spend some of your time on that site. How many minutes a day you spend to earn that $20? (Readers note that he is a college student)

Will you stay when that drops to $20 per year per my calculations above?

The delay to compute the proof-of-work. You can't just magically pull proof-of-work out of thin air as it requires expending electricity.

Although an attacker could muck around with timestamps on his chain, he has start from some known block and he must produce a longer chain of PoW computation, which requires he consume more electricity than one the current longest chain.

These are Bitcoin101 concepts.


I do not know what you are thinking about. Sounds weird. Are you thinking about Blockstream's Side-chains proposal (which is known to be insecure)?

Spot on.

Is that F'ETHing not yet at 0 yet.

The downward price will remind those who converted to SP, that they need 2 years to remove their investment. 

Those who invest and don't convert to SP, are losing 0.19% per day due to debasement.

The problem with Steemit is they have no income model, thus once the price is not going up, there is no valuation where it has an P/E ratio. And the system is designed to incentivize cashing out. I just don't see where the buying demand will come from except for a bubble while the price is moving up fast. There is no incentive to HODL this token.

The downward price will remind those who converted to SP, that they need 2 years to remove their investment.  

Those who invest and don't convert to SP, are losing 0.19% per day due to debasement.

The problem with Steemit is they have no income model, thus once the price is not going up, there is no valuation where it has an P/E ratio. And the system is designed to incentivize cashing out. I just don't see where the buying demand will come from except for a bubble while the price is moving up fast. There is no incentive to HODL this token.

I was not involved in the hack.

Steemit is doomed. I will explain in a post soon...


Anyone who has invested and converted from STEEM to SP (Steem Power) is going to lose their money.

Whoopee-doo. The famous unfalsifiable shitcoin illogical excuse, "you didn't attack my worthless shitcoin, therefor my shitcoin is secure".

Either it is not PoS, or it has adhoc social contract checkpoints (i.e. a centralized clusterfuck) and a large marketcap ($billion), or it has a tiny marketcap (< $100 million) that isn't worth attacking.

Goodbye asshat, you are now on Ignore because you write nonsense and you are not even a programmer.

kiklo you are not qualified to debate me. Any person who is qualified and reads what I have written to you, is shaking their head wondering how you can be such a dumb jackass. I have been warned to never argue with an idiot, because an idiot doesn't know when they are incorrect.

Incorrect. This is only known to nodes which were online at the time. The entire point about nothing-at-stake is that new nodes that come online can't verify which chain is valid without some adhoc social contract and checkpoints.

We experts don't have time to run around correcting all the places that these asshats promulgate their nonsense.


Incorrect. The attacker can short the token (which btw is one reason why attacking these tiny PoS coins is not worth it).

Etc, etc., etc...

As I explained already (see quote below), the coin age time employed to threshold the delay for signing in the variant of PoS you are using, isn't delayed by PoW computation delay. The coin age delay is a fabrication of the UXTO at that point in time. Since the attacker can construct a UXTO from his own stake and since in PoS there is no PoW computational delay impeding the attacker from rebuilding a Long Range chain attack, then the only way to prevent such an attack (i.e. the nothing-at-stake problem) in PoS is to employ checkpoints. This is is known to every expert who has studied PoS.


Unlike your Dunning-Kruger idiot troll colleague kiklo, at least you are apparently smart (humble/wise) enough to understand you should phrase your thoughts as an inquiry and see what my rebuttal is, so I can explain to you what your myopia is. I can appreciate a calm and rational discussion with you, if you keep it that way. Thank you.

Tangentially, note I am in some areas of programming, "a crazy expert programmer". Did you not for example see my schooling of Bitcoin core developer (also key member of Blockstream) Gregory Maxwell on the cost of a correct index missing from the Ogg container format for which he is supposed to be a resident expert given he was the co-inventor of one of the Ogg codecs. Did you not see where I was designing a new programming language which is one of the most expert tasks in computer science. I don't say this to be boastful, but because it is an enormous waste of my time when someone doesn't respect that I am, and trolls their slobbering ignorance on one of my threads, dragging me into wasting hours and hours of my scarce time. kiklo has now earned the asshat medal, which will be permanently affixed to his reputation from my perspective. After this debate has concluded with kiklo walking away with his tail between his legs, he will go on my Ignore and disappear into a black hole far from my productive life because he has negative worth in life (from my perspective). I make mistakes like any human. None of us are omniscient and I am not expert about every corner of the programming universe (e.g.  I am not a cryptographer nor am I a networking expert), but I am orders-of-magnitude more knowledgeable about programming issues than kiklo and in his messed up sense of pecking order; he seems to somehow think I would go on for 4 pages in a thread if I were not expertly 99% confident that I am correct about the issue he and I have been debating.


Nice fantasy you have asshat.

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an non-finite speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:


Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an non-finite speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:


Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an innumerable speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:


Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.

My design could not be merge-mined with Bitcoin due to the radical difference in the block design, so it wouldn't gain Bitcoin's mining security as a side-chain. I think possibly there can only be one winner-take-all of my design because the PoW is effected by the payers so one chain will have the most security. It is like Bitcoin dejavu 2009 again, perhaps...

A lot depends on timing and LN, etc.. So I need to not talk and just release something.

You are up against very, very many people who have come to the same conclusion, including the authors of the BitFury white paper I cited, Peter Sztoric, smooth, myself, all of us together have 100+ years of programming experience. Dude you have an enormous ego considering you aren't even a programmer. Do you realize how much a prick you are? Those other guys wouldn't even bother replying to you, because they think you are so stupid.


You who is not even a programmer, is going to correct all of us expert programmers.  


I was also referring to the accumulated sum of the thresholds you call difficulty. That is irrelevant and that you don't understand why, goes directly to the heart of your slobbering Dunning-Kruger ignorance.

I already explained to you there is no computational cost. Adding thresholds which have no computation cost does not prevent the fast construction of a chain from any point in history. The coin age delays are entirely relative to what the attacker constructs on the chain of transactions.

You are making a fool of yourself and you are proudly being a real jerk to me wasting my time and thinking you know more than an expert programmer. And I'm done wasting my time on your ignorance. Just because you listened to some technobabble from your lesser programming friends, doesn't make you qualified to regurgitate their incorrect technical understanding in a debate with me.

You wasted several hours of my time today. This is very expensive. You are making me very angry.

PLEASE FUCKING STOP PRICK.

Why do you think you are important enough to justify putting your text in bright blue when everyone else here is cordial enough to write in black text.

You've been asked several times to be cordial and respectful and stop writing in blue text. You seem to think very highly of your ignorant, slobbering self.

Dude I was defending his other work. And the reason Hueristic is making that point is because Monero's Shen-noether (who was very condescending to me also) had found a bug in the anonymity of ShadowCash.

Next time at least vent your anger at the guy who was actually criticizing. Sheesh.

Yeah it is disgusting around here. You can look in the mirror for another reason why.

I agree. There is no valuation being built on actual expectation of sustainable adoption. It is speculators chasing a bubble, and perhaps some insiders manipulating the price by buying from themselves on the exchanges. Just like ETH, it is possible to rocket way up in price before the party ends.

That would only be like a 14X gain from current price. About what Ethereum did earlier this year.

It doesn't necessarily need to be sustainable to do that.

We don't see how it is economically sustainable. You can read our prior posts on why. Do you have any idea how it might be economically sustainable after reading our posts?

I understand now that by "difficulty" you are referring to the threshold to sign your stake over. And as I told you from this start, this is not computational work that prevents a Long Range attack. One can go back and sign for some state of the chain as far back as the genesis block and pretend that signature was issued back at that time. And rebuild a completely new chain this way, because there is not computational work that has to be done to prevent the attacker from building a very long chain quickly. That is precisely what is meant by the "nothing-at-stake" problem and why checkpoints are required.

So after several pages of you trolling me, now you see I was correct. I warned you.

Fails Occam's Razor test? Why 3000 signups per day? Because of the $800 payouts on a blog post.


I agree it is different in terms of types of articles, layout, than the other blog sites I provided as examples.


The only reason is because some of us are thinking the offer of large payouts is driving the significant number of signups and we are thinking this could turn into an exodus when the funding for the payouts is depleted, if there isn't something else compelling about the site that is unique enough and that can substitute for the user's loss of incentive to receive huge payouts.

Also if the economic model of the token fails, I don't see how the Steemit corporation plans to continue to earn money to fund their development efforts. They could convert to ads, but lack of ads is one of the aspects that makes the site cleaner and more pleasant.