@iamnotback

You are way overthinking it. Perhaps you are trying to fix the Internet and make sure that quality work gets rewarded, all of which is noble, but is almost entirely irrelevant to Steemit.

Steemit is a social media platform, and like all the other social media platforms it is not high art or journalism, but a platform for people to pass their time (consider how much of peoples' time has shifted from watching bad TV to social media), communicate (often without any lasting significance), have fun, show off, and generally do the things that most real people spend most of their time doing in this world. This will never change, regardless of technology or algorithms, because people basically don't change.

It will work fine for that. In doing so it will also introduce a large number of people to cryptocurrency, something they have never seen before in a reasonably usable way (if at all). Now there is a theory that most people have no use for cryptocurrency and if that theory is correct then that aspect of it will fall flat on its face, and probably the coin won't be worth much either (though the platform may still survive). On the other hand, it is possible that a large number of people from a wide swath of society with access to cryptocurrency, something we have never seen before, will find something interesting and perhaps unexpected to do with it. Or at least some subset of them will, a subset that wasn't being reached before. That might be enough.

The main obstacles are not that the incentives or game theory "aren't right" but more mundane things you have identified earlier such as the feature set of the platform (is it fun enough, can people get lost it it and pass the time, etc.), reliability of hosting (currently atrocious, and this is costing a lot in user growth), etc.

You obviously don't understand women. The white trash part might be an issue though. Maybe.

That is not normal, I have never seen it and I don't understand what you are suggesting.

LOL, as if my tiny 1-2% stake even gets me a seat at the table.

If they manage to make a success of it I stand to do well, but I have zero say about anything. Probably quite a few things would be different if I did, but I don't so I'm just a passive investor like (almost) everyone else.

Wrong command. Try "get_mining_queue"

If you are in the queue and don't get a block reward when you get to the front of the queue, that means you are either missing a witness= line in your config, or you have and issue with keys. The miner= line has to include your active key and, if different, your witness signing key (use get_witness to check) needs to be in a private-key= line.

Although the site was accessible and people could post, vote, and comment, no payouts occurred until July 4. Many people probably thought it was a fraud or would fail by then, or just have no users. When the payouts were made and many people actually got money in their hands, interest in the platform increased enormously.

I could have sworn I posted this just a few hours ago: https://steemit.com/piston/@xeroc/piston-web-first-open-source-steem-gui---searching-for-alpha-testers

If Steem is successful there will be many clients, not just these. Steemit has said they are planning to open source the web portion of their client "soon".

Control of stake is another issue, and probably a more valid criticism.

30 day escrow

@cryptohunter, Dan and Stan are two different people. Dan is clearly involved as co-founder and lead deleveloper. Stan is not obviously involved in any active way, though it is possible he made some passive investment.

As far as analyzing the blockchain, that can certainly be done. It is rather more trivial than darkcoin, at least from the perspective of early mining, because no aspect of the insiders mining 80% was hidden. Aside from the fact that they said they were doing exactly that on the thread when they launched it, the coins were mined by accounts with the name steemit00, steemit01, etc. (along with a few others like moderator and administrator) and then moved to an account named 'steemit'. You don't need to be an expert blockchain analyzer to figure that out.

As far as evidence of literal scamming, I've haven't seen it. But I never followed Bitshares (Dan's previous project, in which Stan was also directly involved) that closely so I don't know.

Not hypothetical. It exists, but is immature: https://steemit.com/piston/@xeroc/piston-web-first-open-source-steem-gui---searching-for-alpha-testers

Agree about proof-of-stake and the stake being highly concentrated.

Alternate/sybil account.

"blocktrades" is not an alt, it is an identified person/business who has done work for Steemit as a contractor. Obviously "dan" is a founder, but I wouldn't' call it an "alt" of steemit (there are other well-known founder accounts). There rest are indeed alts that they identified as such during the launch.

For the most part no one (with a few exceptions) is even asking that question. The 50K SD question is whether enough users will sign up to make it worth caring. That was the real issue with Bitshares as far as I can tell, not whether it had the right number of delegates or not. No users = no one cares = number of delegates doesn't matter.

By claim, I meant use, not come back just for the cashout. You are still viewing this from a crypto coin perspective where it is all about getting at those coins (like a rat killing itself pressing the button hoping that coins will come out of the chute) not a social media perspective.

If Steem becomes very popular then people who signed up early but stopped using it will probably want to come back. This applies even with no rewards at all. I signed up for twitter very early but never used it for years until it became popular.

No doubt. Of course nothing prevents those users from coming back later to claim the accounts if the value goes up. There is no maintenance cost to idle accounts that don't use bandwidth.

The free offer is "$10 worth of SP" (i.e. 3 SP at present) not 10 SP. The 10 SP may have been the offer at one time but not any more.

I actually agree with that. My comment was in the context of arhag's post about the economic model and where the revenue comes from. Nevertheless I have no idea how much the implied fees will go up and whether that is sufficient to support any particular valuation. There are enormous uncertainties to it.

There is really no good reason to buy Steem now to power up, as an immediate practical consideration. No one needs it. The only reason is speculation on future value.


Agree somewhat. SP as buying access to the network may or may not also be significant, even if the transactions on the network (which will need to be extremely high in volume for this to matter) are not necessarily (exclusively) financial.

Have to reboot the power down to include new earnings.

Sybil attacking depends on the measures used by whoever it is who is paying for the account with their Steem. If you are getting your account from the steemit web site, they have various rules about social media accounts, IP addresses, etc. I'm sure they can all be bypassed, but that may or may not be worth it for $10 of value that has further restrictions on liquidating it (and these rules can all be changed if it becomes a problem; nothing at all is promised when it comes to free accounts). The minimum to power down is not the primary obstacle to milking the free accounts, but it does reduce the incentive somewhat, so other barriers can be a bit lower, inconveniencing legitimate users less.

The minimum is set by witness vote. Might decline, might increase. There is no set rule. It is possible the minimum might at some point not be sufficient to actually use the network much if at all, since bandwidth scarcity could increase the amount of SP needed. That depends on a number of things including usage, technology, etc.


In practice the main effect is to sprinkle a little rewards around to a lot of people. I doubt anyone will make a living as a professional commenter, but who knows.

You obviously disagree with their investment thesis. That's why markets exist.