There is little to no information leakage if you are using a commonly used amount. If you use 63 all the time and no one else does (or not many) then it is easy to pick out your transactions on the blockchain. Unless you really know what you are doing using the default is probably best, or maybe some other common small number like 5 or 10.

You can link to whatever you want. It is a decentralized system so there aren't really any rules. It is up to voters to decide whether they like what you have to offer. Mostly the problem is getting people to notice it at all in the enormous sea of posts. Without some sort of significant following you won't make much.

In almost all cases of non-stupid crypto the "breaking" takes the form of theoretical weaknesses that aren't practically usable for an actual attack until years later if ever, but reduce the security margin to an uncomfortable level. At that point you replace it with something else and people have ample opportunity to switch over. Nothing like that is even on the horizon right now.

I know Shen has been looking at various things, even post-quantum stuff. I have no idea how far long that exploration is at this point.


That's not a change at all. What was done there is replace separate copy of the crypto library in Monero with the exact unmodified crypto library from its original source. That eliminates the possibility that the Monero crypto library was somehow modified to introduce a back door (though it has been reviewed and wasn't, this makes that fact more transparent)

Yes, I agree that's a good approach. I will look into how the details work.


aeon.cash (credit to sammy007 for picking that)

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.


Valid points. There is other development work going on though, I wouldn't base everything on what blog posts Dan decides to put up.


You make some valid points about the investment proposition overall, and many including existing investors have said the same thing. The above is wrong though. The portion of your SP that isn't yet powered down continues to get antidillution payments. Your weekly payments actually increase in terms of STEEM every week. This largely offsets the effect of inflation. In fact your outcome will largely be determined by what happens to the market price/demand, not inflation.

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.

Failure to continue to gain use adoption and investor demand, resulting in a terminal decline as participants bleed away to pursue solutions elsewhere. I don't see that happening at all right now, but that is the hypothetical.


I would say low but zero chance is also an absurd statement. 1000 USD/XMR would not even be a very high market cap by the standards of global assets. Absent failure, 1000 USD/XMR is likely.

@Heuristic there are no significant known or reasonably suspected problems with Curve25519. I have no idea where you are getting that from.

Correct. It isn't even something you could ever do via the web GUI. Only with CLI/API. Normal users are not affected at all by this change.

We will ask them to reenable AEON (they still have it listed in their wallet but it is disabled) once the rebase is complete. The main issue they have with supporting it is the high memory footprint, which will be resolved.

The effect of this is that low-SP users can't reduce their vote weight from the default, but even minimum-balance accounts can still vote with the default weight. The change was made because some attacker was using cheap accounts with low-weight votes to spam the blockchain. That is now prevented.

From my perspective the main thing is the high price. You can't just look at this as coin-vs-coin, but you have to ask if a Bitcoin is really worth 300 times as much as Monero. Clearly Bitcoin is more established, more widely used, more widely held, etc. But 300 is a high ratio, and there is perhaps room for it to fall a lot and all the things I said in the previous sentence would still be true. Price matters.

Great work sammy007!

Yes, when I first saw his comments I figured that's what he must have meant. Or maybe he waits to be able to trade out in an instant (in which case I agree with him), I don't know.

I mostly agree with your points. I will quibble on a few details but that doesn't constitute overall disagreement.


I don't find liquidity to be all that low. You can easily trade $10Ks of both STEEM and SBD in a relatively short time with little problem. $100K if you are willing to move the market.

It is slightly lower than other coins with similar market cap, but within the overall range based on my experience trading it and other coins. (I don't know of a useful and accurate objective metric of liquidity that is easy to obtain but trading volume is an often-quoted approximation and while it is lower than some other coins it isn't terrible; 3x DOGE or XMR today for example.)

But that may be based on the high short-term supply rate as you suggested. As the rate of new supply begins to approach its longer-term equilibrium with a huge portion of the supply locked in SP, the liquidity may further erode.


I think a lot of that is the organization of the web site. There is nothng at all like a subreddit, personal or group home page, group feature with memberships, or other community features of any kind. The categories feature is underdeveloped and doesn't really work. In fact the whole web site seems like a afterthought that is poorly developed (though I wouldn't take anything away from their building a reasonably decent web wallet and blockchain explorer for the content; that was a significant effort).


I find the growth on the slow side but I don't really agree with the reasons you put forward. Most people are never going to earn anything like an income from a social media site, so this is somewhat of a straw man. People will join because it is fun period, or because it is fun to earn even a little (or both). But if you are saying that the viral growth was supposed to be from significant earnings  (like an income) and that part isn't working then I agree.

Although I would say that even today viral growth appears to be working among successful bloggers. They are getting significant earnings and recruiting their colleagues, who in many cases are doing the same (so literally viral growth). The bloggers may bring the readers. Perhaps with more readers that will bring more bloggers (even without direct recruitment). So this could work. I'm not sure.


So Medium has found that 1/1000 of the user base earns anything significant. I find that number very reasonable and I doubt that is going to change. If something needs to change it may be the growth model beyond that 1/1000, to the extent that it is too tied to earnings. I don't see any of the upcoming competing sites doing anything any better though.

I also agree with the later comments about voter apathy.


None taken and I agree I absolutely gamed the mining of it. It was set up to almost require that someone do that. If it wasn't me and the few others who did, it would be someone else.

Exactly and as she gains traction voting 30+ minutes won't work. You will have to vote earlier to get anything at all, curation rewards end up reduced, and she is rewarded a bit more (up to 33%) for her consistency and reputation. There is no real value in "curating" someone who has already established herself as providing consistently good posts.


Sure, there are other issues with it, but this isn't one of them.

That's exactly the intent. It's individually milking, yes, but the auction means these rewards are transferred to the author. Once there is less curation decision to be made (because the answer is 70-90% predetermined) then there is little curation reward.

Dan's posts pay about 5% of the normal curation reward. Anonymint's posts pay more, but still less than the full reward that votes on a complete unknown would get. Seems about right to me.

That is exactly the intent. You are getting those votes because of consistently good content. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Curation rewards start to disappear in this case because of the earlier and earlier voting. The one actually producing the consistently good content (you) is the one rewarded.

If the content starts to suck, you will lose your audience and stop getting votes, with the same incentives working in reverse. The later votes will disappear and then the earlier votes (which exist because of the later votes) will unwind too.

This, frankly, is exactly what people want in a content source. You can try creating a site where content is completely blind without any labeling of authorship or brand and instead every post has to be individually evaluated in a vacuum, but I'm virtually certain it will fail (except perhaps due to its novelty value as a sort of game).


The formatting sucked, so I'm going to fix that and repost it.

I don't see anything broken there. That is the whole intent of the 30 minute reverse auction. Voters have to compete by voting earlier and earlier, and by doing so the rewards are shifted to the author. Thus authors who are gaining votes based on track record and reputation are rewarded for it.

If someone votes early expecting there to be later votes, and then there aren't (assume because later more careful voters look at the post and decide it is crap), that vote is wasted. To the extent there is a luck component based on what happens to be seen and what isn't, that will cancel out. Smarter voters will do better. (The luck component -- and didadvantage to people in certain time zones -- will be reduced when the first voting period is put back to 24 hours from 12 hours; that was a bad change IMO.)

Yes, you are mining. There can be some configuration issues where you don't get blocks but according to that output you should find a block within about 3 hours so if you don't you will know soon enough that something is wrong.

support at steemit.com maybe? I'm not really sure.


See the next two posts in this thread after yours. This blockchain is an order of magnitude more complicated than most (all?) others and the mechanisms are poorly explained in general.