Thank you for the report, and thank you sammy007 for the Mac OS compile fix!

Technically it was cripple mined for a short time (inherited crippled mining code from Bytecoin) but the amount of coins attributable to that before it got fixed was low (few percent at most, probably less).

Let's be proud of what has been achieved and indeed as you say the mining network of XMR is a pretty damn impressive achievement but not deny that it has not been a bump-free road.

At 5 H/W we rank about 3rd by power dissipation on the supercomputer list: https://www.top500.org/lists/2016/11/

Those were done by a community member (@thecryptodrive) using the site as a source of crowdfunding. Unfortunately, as the price of STEEM has fallen the ability to do this for projects on that scale isn't there any more.

I don't know what plans the HQ may have for marketing, but I wouldn't expect to see those kinds of big-ticket efforts from the community at this point.


That's a load of crap. At least 30% of the Bitcoin supply was mined into existence at <$1. A lot of that has never moved and can dump on new investors heads at any time.

And even if it were true, it would not change the dynamics with respect to a Ponzi scheme. To prevent the Bitcoin price from crashing, even today, requires that new money continually enter (even if old investors don't dump). In other words, existing investors are relying on new investors to generate a return (and even to not lose their money). That's the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and there is no difference in this regard between Bitcoin (or any other coin with block rewards) and Steem.


See you soon.

I keep telling you (and it is correct) that this is the case for any coin with block rewards (including PoW). Where do those block rewards go? One of:

1. New buyers
2. Existing holders/miners increasing their investment (equivalent to capital inflow)
3. Crashing the market

There is no difference here. The new coins (block reward) go to posters instead of miners. But either way, they still require capital inflow (what you call fresh blood). And to the extent that the inflow exceeds the outflow and the price goes up, that benefits the existing holders, starting with the biggest.

The hyperinflation arguments are nonsense whether they come from you or Tone. Earning 100% interest on something that doubles its money supply leaves you in just the same place you started, and that's about how Steem worked under hyperinflation (if one looked at VESTS, the underlying non-hyperinflationary token on the blockchain, the supply barely budged, and neither did most holdings). For example, this "The biggest holders can keep their stake goin and power down constantly thus profiting nonstop" is completely wrong (again whether it comes from you or Tone). Someone who powers down will reach zero in the appointed time period regardless of staking (used to be 104 weeks, now 13 weeks).

Everything else you wrote (for example, that you can't spend the coins anywhere) is true of just about every, if not every, coin except Bitcoin (and even Bitcoin's so-called use cases beyond speculation are somewhat of a joke in terms of scale).

So I'm really not sure what your gripe is here, other than:

1. Unfair launch and distribution (which I not only agree with but I was the one who replied challenging the claim of a fair launch before you showed up)
2. It's a cryptocurrency/blockchain that isn't Bitcoin.

And for what it is worth I also frequently tell people when they ask that non-Bitcoin cryptos are very questionable investments (with nearly all historically underperforming Bitcoin), and even Bitcoin is highly risky, so I actually agree on #2 to a large extent as well.


FFS do you read my replies? There is no hyperinflation and hasn't been for months. Total money supply growth is <9.5% per year and that includes some going back to stockholders, so the effective net inflation is lower.


This isn't true. The data is all public on the blockchain and subject to accountability, not hidden in a corporate database. The CEO can't edit your posts as happened on reddit. You can't be banned. Third parties can easily write their own user interfaces that bypass the corporate-controlled one entirely (and some have). I don't know if these differences are enough to matter, but they are certainly different from Facebook and Reddit, and mean it has something unique to offer.

Explain, then, why they decided to wait until after they had dumped a large portion of their coins at lower and lower prices before "fixing" the economics? The result was enormously reducing their haul, likely by millions of dollars. That makes no so sense.

What makes sense is that they actually believed the economics were okay, even good, and that the market would eventually figure it out. Or to the extent that you think it was bullshit, they believed their own bullshit. (Which I'd point out hasn't really been disproven actually, they  just threw on the towel on it once the price had dropped 97% or something.)

You're confusing it being an "unfair" launch resulting in highly concentrated holdings making it not something particularly good to buy with it being a Ponzi scheme. The two are distinct concepts.

And for the record I have never told anyone it was a good idea to buy STEEM and told several people (who specifically asked) the reasons to consider not buying it. There isn't anything wrong with using the site though, and earning coins without buying (if you feel it is worth your time).

Oh, and as for the 5x (probably more than that) longer white paper, that doesn't, at all, demonstrate they understood or understand anything. If you can't explain something briefly you probably don't understand it very well. The same goes for Tone's long-winded criticisms and markup of minutiae instead of getting to the point.

That's a different person, but yes, your opinions, whatever their merits, are better expressed when you don't engage in name calling.

You can believe what you like, but to me does look like a lot was just bad decisions in designing and organizing something (on top of whatever mental blocks the appear to have, and there are quite a few, apparently it was thrown together in a pretty short period of time) that wasn't very well-received. Especially when you consider that they haven't really made much money out of it all. I'm sure they would have wanted more, and frankly being the first crypto social platform to actually launch probably could have gotten more without all the missteps.

As with most crypto projects, it seems they got a few things right and more than a few things wrong.

Doesn't have to be on the first page.

I'm not a fan of the "What's the difference" focus.

AEON is AEON. It isn't Monero reloaded.

First of all, they cashed out for about 5 months, not a year (and I certainly never defended them doing so, in fact I heavily criticized it). Second of all, the hyperinflation system was always widely misunderstood, as you continue to demonstrate here. It didn't convey any particular advantage to early stakeholders as interest and inflation effectively canceled out resulting in a real interest rate near zero (though it did, by design, discourage short term speculation). Whether or not the hyperinflation existed they still would have cashed out, and arguably it hurt their efforts to doing so by having a confusing system that reduced investor demand for them to dump on, and by impairing liquidity for them to dump into.

I already read Tone's markup long ago when he posted it on Twitter. It was then, as now, riddled with clear logical and even clear factual errors. If you are basing your conclusion on that analysis, you are being led astray. What's more, it is obsolete now as the entire economic model has been reworked (though when you start out with erroneous analysis, becoming obsolete isn't particularly significant).

Anyway, I'm not sure his markup was ever posted on the thread so making it available here is a sort of contribution I suppose. People should be informed about all points of view and make up their own minds, but keep the previous paragraph in mind when doing so.

We will have to agree to disagree on that, and again, Dash or your views about my choices of which questions to answer are off topic.

You are more than welcome to discuss Steem in positive or negative terms but so far you haven't come up with anything except trolling using sexual references, "Tone Vays says it is a Ponzi scheme", and smooth is unfair since he doesn't helpfully answer user questions about Dash (which, BTW, I have). Do you have anything else?

I've watched his video and I found his "Ponzi" claim to be rambling and incoherent. You apparently don't understand the issue well enough to see that he didn't make a good case, or you don't care and just like the idea that he attached a label without effectively justifying it.


You can call it what you want, but I explained to you why it is no more or less a Ponzi than any other blockchain that pays block rewards. That doesn't make it a good project. I think people can make up their own minds. You don't see me here telling people that there aren't red flags nor that they should invest nor claiming that it was fairly launched nor that the distribution is favorable.

Your complaint seems to be that I answer factual questions about how the system works when people ask so whatever decisions they do make are accurately informed. Too bad. I see nothing wrong with that. You might try that in fact, since you apparently didn't know that the hyperinflation structure was replaced a while back.

Move the goalposts much? Your criticism of the launch (which I don't disagree with) has nothing to do with being a "Ponzi scheme" or not. The term actually has a definition which informally is depending on later investors to pay returns to earlier investors.

BTW, the hyperinflationary structure was replaced several months ago. The current inflation rate is a bit less than 9.5%, declining by 1/2% per year.

It is being built and tested and will be uploaded soon.

That I'm happy to do. It is no more or less a Ponzi than any other coin that pays block rewards whether from mining or staking (or some combination/hybrid/variant). Some argue that all of these coins are Ponzis, which is fair (in the sense that appreciation, or even retaining value despite distribution of additional units, requires new investment). But it is not accurate to cherry pick which ones are or aren't Ponzis when they all work essentially the same way.

Nice of you to stop by traumschiff

Let me summarize your key points:

1. Trolling about sexual acts
2. I answer questions from the community about Steem
3. I'm not intelligent
4. Steem is a ponzi scheme and no one can make money trading it
5. I'm a hypocrite

Now that you've gotten that out of your system, unless you have something else to say about Steem, please be on your way, because off topic posts are not allowed on this forum.

I don't think there is a way to solo mine with a GPU unless you set up your own pool.

If you want to solo mine you need the daemon then you can start with:

./aeond --start-mining {your-address} --mining-threads {number-of-threads}

Also a reasonable point of view. I don't actually know whether it is correct or not. At least the part about 3 second block times is certainly accurate.

I can't agree with pretty much any part of that statement. Reporting on and criticizing a fraudulent instamine and other issues with Dash is not "trolling" as you deceptively and dismissively call it, and there are huge differences between Steem and Dash including their respective launches (off the top of my head I can think of at least a half dozen), but Dash is off topic here so I won't discuss it further.

Now that is not to say that Steem had a "fair launch" as the term is generally applied. It didn't, which is why I pushed back at the person who was claiming it. The launch was rigged to produce a desired outcome for the devs, but that was explicitly stated at the time and has never been hidden. Anyone who isn't comfortable with that should stay away.