|
The reverse split sounds like a y2k-type upcoming fiasco (even if it is every 3 years). Exchanges and trading will be extremely problematic during the transition. And some people won't even know about the reverse split, selling their steem for pennies - thinking it went up in value... lol.
If they think it through, and how many potential issues it can have in a mature ecosystem, they'll probably cancel it.
|
|
|
|
nevermind, I guess that means no Edit : Ok, so it was released a day ago thx! Edit 2: Any idea how long it will take with the seeds? No idea. |
|
|
|
Any news about wtf is going on with scaling? Any thoughts on Bitcoins lacklustre performance lately?
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/Scaling is so "bad" that in the last 24hr 125 txs were conducted with zero fees 48k txs were conducted with 1-10 satoshi /byte 11.5k txs were conducted with 11-20 satoshi /byte 19.5k txs were conducted with 21-30 satoshi /byte If there was a capacity issue the above would be impossible at such dirt-cheap levels. Furthermore, the attempt to pin "scaling" and "price" together has failed at levels like 200-300-400 etc when people were saying "oh it will never go beyond 200 because ...scaling".... and then the same at 300, 400, etc. I didn't ask whether it was a problem. I'm asking how it's going with the solutions. Of course the chain won't stay saturated forever. Nobody "needs" Bitcoin now. When it doesn't work properly people stop using it. Hence the price. Have you noticed that what is happening is exactly what Gavin said was going to happen? The price has grown from 200 to 400 to 660. If price is an indicator of whether it's working well, I guess it's working damn well. As for saturation, the chain can be saturated for ever no matter the block size, even 1gb blocks. If it costs near zero to broadcast a tx, why wouldn't it be "saturated"? The only question is whether miners are ok processing these txs or not. Then someone will bitch about "ohhh the mempool is saturated and miners don't process my 0.000001$ tx"  |
|
|
|
Any news about wtf is going on with scaling? Any thoughts on Bitcoins lacklustre performance lately?
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/Scaling is so "bad" that in the last 24hr 125 txs were conducted with zero fees 48k txs were conducted with 1-10 satoshi /byte 11.5k txs were conducted with 11-20 satoshi /byte 19.5k txs were conducted with 21-30 satoshi /byte If there was a capacity issue the above would be impossible at such dirt-cheap levels. Furthermore, the attempt to pin "scaling" and "price" together has failed at levels like 200-300-400 etc when people were saying "oh it will never go beyond 200 because ...scaling".... and then the same at 300, 400, etc. Which fee should I use? The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 292 bytes, this results in a fee of 17,520 satoshis (0.11$). Yes, that's first block inclusion. FASTEST. |
|
|
|
Any news about wtf is going on with scaling? Any thoughts on Bitcoins lacklustre performance lately?
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/Scaling is so "bad" that in the last 24hr 125 txs were conducted with zero fees 48k txs were conducted with 1-10 satoshi /byte 11.5k txs were conducted with 11-20 satoshi /byte 19.5k txs were conducted with 21-30 satoshi /byte If there was a capacity issue the above would be impossible at such dirt-cheap levels. Furthermore, the attempt to pin "scaling" and "price" together has failed at levels like 200-300-400 etc when people were saying "oh it will never go beyond 200 because ...scaling".... and then the same at 300, 400, etc. |
|
|
|
Get ready for... sideways forever.
Did I call this or what? You called it. Side note, Estimated Next Difficulty: 197,309,358,560 (-7.58%). The greatest hash rate/difficulty drop in recorded history (or Bitcoinwisdom recorded history, at least  ) The diff was 196,061,423,940 between June 8 and June 20 It went up to 213,398,925,331 by July 4 ("last push" of the obsolete hardware to make what they could, pre-halving) ...and if it goes to 197 it will be still higher than what we had 5-7 weeks ago, when the daily supply was double... what a "disaster" huh?  |
|
|
|
|
It's up to the voter to determine if they are sufficiently convinced and if their upvote should be given.
KYC? Video verification? No need for all these.
|
|
|
|
I got raped. Give me money.
Don't plagiarize me bro LOL |
|
|
|
|
"There appears to be an easy (way) to find"
Also give it a space before and prior the image, it seems stuck on it.
|
|
|
|
|
>Please tell me where I can sell my 1050 STEEM POWER??
As of right now, nowhere. Only the account loaded with it. And that means someone will have to gradually drain it to get the power over 104 weeks.
Perhaps smart contracts might be implemented on the blockchain level that are immutable, meaning that one would be selling their weekly SP income which would be automatically directed to the buyer - if the buying condition (price) is met in terms of liquid steem.
I come over to you tell you I want to buy your 1050 steem, you say ok, I'm selling it for 800 liquid steem. We open an online form on the site itself which shows us the "contract", what I give you (800), what I take in return (your SP plus interest or no interest in XXX weeks), and then we both sign it and it's done. You then go cash out your STEEM and you are ok with it.
As for what you say, yes I doubt most will be selling it too. They don't know how.
Anyway...
|
|
|
|
Even if it started with an equal distribution, the shares would quickly accumulate because the poorer shareholders would be lured to sell in prices that thought were "OK". They'd be trading what -to them- are useless tokens worthless for their day to day survival, with btc->$$$ which have tangible RL impact.
The difference is the power-law distribution would be derived from competition. So you would have a wider diversity of insiders. Also I think we can keep the n00bs accounts locked up 104 week withdrawals, so the power-law can't force liquidation so rapidly. Giving the n00bs a chance to partake of the upside appreciation. The power-law distribution will still form amongst the content creators earnings as well, but again in a competitive environment. From what I'm seeing, it's possible to sell or acquire loaded accounts with a discount. And many n00bs do just that. Hey I'm selling my acc for 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 btc... |
|
|
|
I was going to comment on that here, but decided to let someone else do it first since my post count has been so high. My specific comment said something about the 80% premine with something like 40% going to a few guys on the inside. As far as I know from smooth's posts, that only 40% of the 80 - 90% "pre"-mine was allocated to free signups (and if their dysfunctional voting system doesn't cross the chasm, they will never reach to 20 million signups allocated which thus increases the insiders' relative portion of the "pre"-mine to greater than 40%). Also the apparent 80% attrition rate means most (32%) of that 40% of that initial "pre"-mine will be unspendable (lost) money, thus decreasing the effective money supply ( and market capitalization but coinmarketcap.com doesn't appear to realize this) increasing the insiders' share of the "pre"-mine to greater than 50%. AlexGR, I should have wrote about this "lie" on my "Lies about Steem and Steemit". Let's see it this way: Do I get any FB, twitter, reddit shares for posting? No. Do I care who controls their shares? No. Why would I care about who owns steem? As a user it doesn't matter (I have never bought steem except as a trader, so I don't see it as an investor). Only for investors do these things matter and even then, we know that they are backing projects with ICOs, premines, centralization etc etc. They'll do their due diligence and invest accordingly. You'll notice that a very significant portion of people joining Steemit mention the idealism of blockchains and how it could improve matters. They are planting some of their dreams (the hindbrain will tie this all together with "give me money!" and "we are speading love") in the idealism of "decentralization" (nevermind that they never study the fact that Graphene isn't so decentralized). Blockchains are an inevitable outcome of technology. When large databases can fit inside a mobile phone storage cell, there's no reason why you would have only 1 central database to serve the world. That made sense in the 80's/90's and 00's but it will not always make sense. Let's say we go to 2030 and storage capacities that are normal are in the range of 50-100k TBs for a hard-disk equivalent technology that'll exist then. This type of storage would be sufficient to hold a lot of data currently held in centralized storage. Then you start questioning why is central storage and processing necessary and why is the middle man necessary if the sizes involved in these databases are so "small" that they can replicated the world over, multiple times, with simple equipment. It's that simple. So, naturally, text/number based records will be the first to be blockchained. Images and especially videos less so - but it could happen if there's a leap in storage and processing. I wouldn't be complaining if the insiders took maybe 5 - 10% and had it locked up until they issued the free signup accounts (validated as real humans who did not abandon their accounts). But the insiders get theirs no matter what happens on the follow through.
Even if it started with an equal distribution, the shares would quickly accumulate because the poorer shareholders would be lured to sell in prices that thought were "OK". They'd be trading what -to them- are useless tokens worthless for their day to day survival, with btc->$$$ which have tangible RL impact. And then people would again complain about the distribution which is so heavily in favor of the big stakeholders etc etc. It's the same story repeating over and over. Why? Because of the reality of wealth inequality and the priorities of life between those who have less money, more money, and ...a shitload of money that can afford buying facebook apps or games for tens of billions of $$$. Remember: People were selling their BTCs at 10-20-30-50-100$ and thought they were getting a great deal. |
|
|
|
This unfortunately hurts our whole ecosystem including bitcoin as well.
It was a clusterfuck to begin with, so it was just a matter of time before it imploded, forked, whatever. It was an experiment and as such it could fail in multiple ways. |
|
|
|
So do we think that other coin (s) forking fun is going to have repercussions for all crypto?
Yes, we can bury the concept that contentious forks are a good idea... if this clusterfuck is happening with 85-15, imagine 75-25 scenarios or 51%. |
|
|
|
I was going to comment on that here, but decided to let someone else do it first since my post count has been so high. My specific comment said something about the 80% premine with something like 40% going to a few guys on the inside. As far as I know from smooth's posts, that only 40% of the 80 - 90% "pre"-mine was allocated to free signups (and if their dysfunctional voting system doesn't cross the chasm, they will never reach to 20 million signups allocated which thus increases the insiders' relative portion of the "pre"-mine to greater than 40%). Also the apparent 80% attrition rate means most (32%) of that 40% of that initial "pre"-mine will be unspendable (lost) money, thus decreasing the effective money supply ( and market capitalization but coinmarketcap.com doesn't appear to realize this) increasing the insiders' share of the "pre"-mine to greater than 50%. AlexGR, I should have wrote about this "lie" on my "Lies about Steem and Steemit". Let's see it this way: Do I get any FB, twitter, reddit shared for posting? No. Do I care who controls their shares? No. Why would I care about who owns steem? As a user it doesn't matter (I have never bought steem except as a trader, so I don't see it as an investor). Only for investors do these things matter and even then, we know that they are backing projects with ICOs, premines, centralization etc etc. They'll do their due diligence and invest accordingly. |
|
|
|
If you simply made Steem on steemit then little lost.
You are a glass-half-full type of guy, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Note Steemit is accumulating numerous copyright violations. I've read it is $150 per infraction in potential liability.
From what I understand, all videos and pictures are linked externally. At the blockchain level there is only a url link - which may respond now but not after 3 years. Copying text could be another issue though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
