Can only withdraw if you accumulate 10x the starting amount. This can be done by posting, voting or mining.

There was a discussion about that on the coinmarketcap thread. Some or all of the steemit coins are excluded from cmc's calculation similar to how the calculation is done for ripple.


Are you new around here?

Not directly from mining unless very early mining. After the initial period, mining rewards are Steem Power, not liquid.

The transferrable Steem comes from powering down Steem Power, which liquifies 1/104 of your stake per week.

That's clearly wrong in looking at the blockchain.

SP will observe the same reverse stock split as Steem.

You keep mentioning SP tokens, but that is confused. No such token exists. Your SP balance is the product of your VESTS tokens times the exchange rate. When 90% of the Steem in the vesting fund is destroyed, the exchange rate will adjust accordingly, and so will your SP.

There are no 'SP tokens' it is a virtual unit that is derived by multiplying the number of VESTS tokens (largely a hidden token in the system from the perspective of end users) by the exchange rate. When the reverse split happens the exchange rate will be reduced by a factor of 10 to compensate. Nothing will change about SP ownership except the position of the decimal. 1 Steem will still be convertible to 1 SP (and vice versa, allowing for the two-year delay).

I don't know the details as I have never paid much attention to Bitshares. He's said he is working full time on Steem now. Stan appears to still be involved with Bitshares.

Here's one thread discussing it, there are probalby others:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22594.0.html

The money supply roughly doubles every year, then every three years it is reduced to 1/10. This keeps the coin count numbers approximately within the same range longer term, but doesn't affect much else.

Peertracks is, or at least was (not sure any more) a direct project of the Bitshares community, so he was probably involved at some level before he left Bitshares. The basic design probably originates in that era. I don't think he is involved at all now, but I could be wrong and he is involved in some minimal way.

Steemit has literally nothing to do with peertracks afaik. Different team, different code, different target market.

I don't disagree there are issues with the model, even big ones, but that doesn't guarantee failure. The model can be changed. Other factors may turn out to me more important. The world doesn't work like, "Oh, found a flaw, it's over!"

The way I see it, all this is out in the open, no one is being misled. People can do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions.

The irony is, the more I would talk about this, the more harm it would do. Like pro ball players visiting schools and telling kids to study in school and not plan on being pro ball players. The effect is very likely the opposite. Yeah, I was clever and somewhat lucky (though the paper value of this asset doesn't really mean much, so I wouldn't overstate things). Doesn't mean others should try to do the same, but we all know they will.

I don't think it is entirely a premeditated pyramid, I think they actually believe they can establish a large network effect by bringing a very large number of people into the crypto ecosystem in a way that nothing else ever has (in fact it has already achieved a significant percentage of this, and reached demographics previously entirely unreached). The post rewards will likely fall, as we agreed earlier, but paying a fraction of the market cap as a pool for new content does indeed scale both up and down. If the rewards get too small and people stop posting then rewards per post will increase. It is self correcting, as long as there is enough network effect for people to want to remain  part of the system at all, thereby supporting the market cap, which is a very uncertain prospect, but not implausible.


I'm pretty happy with my life, so I see not changing much, and that's assuming this were even real money and not some illiquid asset that is always a threat to quickly return to the value it came from.

No the miner estimated time is (approximately) correct. You either got unlucky or there is something messed up about your config.

I did not ever tell anyone to invest in Steem. I think the long term prospects for the value of the token are not great. I've told the developers of Steem that. I've told people on my crypto social circle that. I've posted that. I don't know what more I can do. I did not support the sneaky-mine and said at the time that I would not promote the coin to crypto speculators (although kind of an easy promise to make since I never promote any crypto coins -- my best guess is all going to zero, though at different rates). It was, however, far more transparent and than the Dash instamine or the Bytecoin hidden premine. For the record, when I first stated that opinion (after the initial mining) it was worth approximately nothing, so the the alleged current market value has changed nothing here.

That said, I also do not think it necessarily will with certainty go to zero, and people can do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. Hell, even Auroracoin and other pure garbage (nothing person to Auroracoin devs) still has some value. Steem has more merit than that.

Mine SP -> power down SP (1/104 of SP balance per week) -> STEEM

As you continue to mine your SP balance grows (both from mining rewards and anti-dilution payments) and you can power down more per week.

So you can mine spendable coins, but you just can't mine and dump quickly. It requires a longer term commitment.

Of course. I was keeping it simple for the purpose of explaining why the 100% inflation is an economically meaningless accounting tool (since he didn't follow the earlier more accurate example). The much smaller inflation that actually pays out to posters and curators (and others like witnesses) is not meaningless.

You can also trade Steem Dollars directly for Bitcoin on Bittrex, although that market has been kind of thin so far.

Flam, half the posting rewards are Steem Dollars and half are Steem Power. Only the Steem Power part has any locking requirement whatsoever. The Steem Dollars can be cashed out immediately.

https://steemit.com/@steemit/transfers

That is the account that collected the "sneaky-mine" coins (originally about 80%, but less now). It does not post, does not vote, and does not receive rewards. It's purposes are to serve as a source of coins to fund free accounts for new users, to sell coins on exchanges to fund development, and to serve as an asset of Steemit Inc, allowing the company to profit from the success of the platform. The first two of these obviously redistribute stake, and do so in a reasonably transparent way.

The R^2 weighting does not work the way you suggest. Yes, posts are R^2 weighted, but users are not. i.e. two users with N stake both voting on a post have about the same total voting power as a single user with 2N stake.

It does indeed lead to a narrower distribution of rewards with most going to a relatively few "hit" posts. That's a marketing decision in part (big payouts attract attention and interest even if most users don't get them), but something superlinear is necessary to prevent the obvious failure mode where people just vote for their own posts (but no one else does) in order to continue to gain a proportionate share of the rewards. The way it has worked out, the most successful posts have far more stake voting for them then any single user or even any small group of whales. You can't just vote to grab rewards and prevent dilution.

In practice, most of the rewards are going to successful and talented bloggers who have joined the site since launch. I expect that as the site grows and pulls from an even larger talent pool of posters and bloggers, the current ones may be pushed aside, at last to an extent, in favor of the greater talent and stronger celebrity status. Maybe that is a bad thing, since talent and celebrity is somewhat narrowly distributed, but in any case it isn't going back to large early stakeholders. We're all being diluted, and at a pretty good clip too.

Brace yourself. Poloniex is (probably) coming

https://steemd.com/@poloniex

Credit to: https://steemit.com/steemit/@liondani/speculation-i-have-strong-indications-that-we-will-trade-our-steems-on-poloniex-the-next-days-maybe-the-next-hours

There is no question that insiders have absolute control now. They have said so, and it is obvious from the transparent holdings on the blockchain.

What the future holds, nobody really knows. Where you and I differ is that I don't believe I have the ability to predict the outcome of extremely complex systems with many people involved. That said, most new businesses fail, most cryptocurrencies fail, so objectively speaking the odds for Steem are not good. I'm willing to let it play out though, and see where it goes. Nothing else I've seen here has made even a remotely credible effort to reach a mainstream audience. Steem has at least done that, even if flawed, and even if it fails.