Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy.
If the currency loses value it's acceptance is reduced for the purpose of transacting. That's why most national currencies can't be used for international trade and global commerce is conducted in hard currencies. You can't compete with the paypal/$ combo if you are not superior in that regard. Hard currency - predictable future value Soft currency - unpredictable future value Inflation is totally OK with trade, if it is predictable. Inflation/Losing value doesn't make a soft currency, but it's unpredictability is what makes a currency soft and low quality. Just like with bitcoin is a soft currency with a highly unpredictable future value. Bitcoin is fairly "predictable". It's long term trend is upwards and its buying power increases in terms of tangible assets. I can't say the same for fiat currencies  |
|
|
|
Currency itself hasn't been created for storing value, but to transact value and by that help the dynamics of economy.
If the currency loses value it's acceptance is reduced for the purpose of transacting. That's why most national currencies can't be used for international trade and global commerce is conducted in hard currencies. You can't compete with the paypal/$ combo if you are not superior in that regard. |
|
|
|
Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.
There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.
Non-sequitor. Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site. So your "successful" assumption is in-congruent with your reasoning. (keep the rebuttals coming, as I thought of all of them already) It's not working because current whales aren't doing their work right in terms of curation... The human factor is at fault here, not the system itself. Human factors are a consideration that has to be part of the design of any system that interacts with humans. There is no distinction. In that sense you are right of course. Let's put it another way. If you've paid a fortune for your steem power, you'd want to use it right and curate "responsibly" because not doing so would reflect badly on the platform and by extension it would hurt your holdings. So, in theory, the system should work because it is in the interest of the highly invested curator to do a good job. Even the narrow exploitation/collusion etc should not work for that investor because it would depreciate his holdings in the long run by undermining the platform. It might be that the problem is located in the fact that initial coins were not valued that much and as such they are not considered a proper "investment" that must be safeguarded by proper practice - and the consequence is that they are not treated as such and the curation that should be done from them, isn't done. So we kind of return to the issue of initial distribution (?) that may have an effect on how the system works. Compounding the effect of "oh look at what was rewarded" is the lack of content, if we compare our current position with what we'll have in, say, 3 months. At that point curation will be easier in terms of rewarding higher quality content, as it will be more. But it will be increasingly difficult to find it and/or reward it without reverting to a patterned behavior of "who's posting? Ah, that guy/girl... upvote him-her already" as time is limited. |
|
|
|
Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.
There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.
Non-sequitor. Whales dominating which content gets ranked is killing the site. So your "successful" assumption is in-congruent with your reasoning. (keep the rebuttals coming, as I thought of all of them already) It's not working because current whales aren't doing their work right in terms of curation... The human factor is at fault here, not the system itself. The system may have economic problems in the "leaking" of money through the liquidity system, steem dollar interest etc, because ultimately you can only leak so much before the leak brings you down. Let's say price depreciates and I can start buying a lot of steem or steem power accounts. Then I can do the curation with a higher standard, elevate the platform, AND use my power to influence things/trends or commercialize it. |
|
|
|
|
Steem price can never "collapse" entirely - because the power to "direct" what content dominates a successful media/social platform will always be something of tremendous value to those who want to create and promote trends, commercialize the trends that they create, etc etc.
There is definitely going to be demand, but not on the "user" level. More on the corporate or ultra-whale level.
|
|
|
|
Implying the founders are keeping 100% of the 80% premine is disingenuous in and of itself. You condone lying too? Most of it is being given to people who register new accounts on Steemit.
No cryptocurrency is decentralized, as Anonymint will be happy to explain to you (or at least link to the 100 page thread where it was proven). Yet, all of them use the buzz word decentralized in advertising materials. If you support any other cryptocurrencies, and I am assuming you do since you're here in the first place, then you are being a hypocrite with this point too.
I think there are two ways to see this 1) As a cryptocurrency investor You see steem has a lot of stealth/pre/instamine (no idea what happened at the start) for the owners and you don't see that as good for investment or as a positive trait for a cryptocurrency Others see it as a very good investment regardless and want to invest. 2) As a social network user. In a sense, Steemit is more of a social network / platform, than a currency. So as a user: Do I care about how many shares Zuckerberg has in fb? No. Am I getting paid in fb? No. Am I getting paid in steemit? Yes. Do I need to care how my money was generated and given to me? No. Do I need to keep "steem" or "steem dollars"? No - I can dump them right away - with the exception of SP which gives 1/104 per week. In any case, it's money you never had, and you are now making and if it is improving your life, why not. So there will be this "clash" of perspectives between (1) and (2) - because (2) don't care and they will outnumber (1) pretty quickly. And the criticism of (1) will be irrelevant to group (2) as they have different starting points, interests and profit vector. One wants to put money to make money but is afraid of "the scam", the second comes and writes content to get paid out of nothing. There is not much overlap in what these two groups "see" in steemit. |
|
|
|
Potential issues that I came across today 1) Someone pointed out the fact that steemit has no fees. My question was, ok, then how does it prevent spam? I covered that upthread. They rate limit the transactions, which has some negative implications for certain potential applications. And there is a transaction fee, which is the cost of holding Steem while it is debased 9X more than SP (since SP can't be transacted). A rate limit can only be effective along with size limitations. Otherwise if you have, say, a rate limit of 1 post per second per account, but no size limitations, then -with one account -you can make 86400 txs per day -let's assume 20kb size =1.7gb spam. If the txs are ike 100kb, that's 8.6gb per day. At a more restrictive 2 sec between txs / 2kb per tx, you have 43200 txs per day x 2kb = 86mb. For a single account. If someone buys 100 such accounts, it's 8.6gb per day. I'm really curious on how no fees can work. Blockchains are good, but not really efficient in dealing with spam. There are two levels of limits. The first level is things like time per post. That doesn't consider size (other than limits on the size of a post) is somewhat circumventable by creating more accounts. The second level is stake-limited bandwidth, is not circumventable, and is based on size. The first limit is more intended to encourage reasonable behavior by people with a reputation, or perhaps more importantly by compromised accounts with a reputation. The second is the real anti-spam limit. You would run out of bandwidth and your network access would be suspended (until bandwidth recharges) long before spamming 8.6 GB/day. Aha... nice to know there are these mechanisms in place. I was worried some script-kiddie would make a joke of this with endless bloating. Let's hope there are sufficient anti-spamming mechanisms, as you describe, to prevent that. |
|
|
|
I am seriously toying with the idea of creating a clone with a decentralized client (which reads directly from blockchain) so it can't be DDoSed attacked (although I guess that is about the effectively the same as caching on servers and employing anti-DDoS) and which fixes all the flaws including the premine.
You overestimate how much people care about who owns what. Especially as far as a mainstream blogging/posting crowd is concerned. This only starts becoming their indirect consideration once they realize that the posting rewards are not spread evenly (which is normal up to a degree - not all content is the same, I mean more in terms of whale-touching-people-with-their-magic-wand). What people would care seeing, is a better steemit in terms of ease of use and features. Better distributed rewards is a bonus (assuming that the model will improve in the future somewhat - or curators will do a better job, because there is a lot of human element involved). But to give thousands of dollars you need a marketcap. Steemit has that marketcap because it has first mover advantage + the limited liquidity (due to SP locked) system in place. It's not that easy. I propose you relax a week, immerse into steemit, check the various aspects, and see how it can be improved. Also remember that radical redistribution of wealth would backfire - I remember Evan proposing the airdrop in darkcoin to dilute it and people almost crucifying him for proposing it. And that was when DRK had something like 2mn marketcap. So... when you have 400mn in marketcap and investors start getting in, you can't have a self-destructive moment where you decide to blow up the economy by distributing hundreds of millions. It's a double-edged knife... |
|
|
|
I'll certainly admit that the recent drop doesn't look good, but as long as we stay above 660 shouldn't the trend be intact and this be ok? Seems that bitcoins death has been greatly exaggerated, again. No?
It doesn't matter if it goes below 660. You already know where it'll go after a while: 666  |
|
|
|
Potential issues that I came across today 1) Someone pointed out the fact that steemit has no fees. My question was, ok, then how does it prevent spam? I covered that upthread. They rate limit the transactions, which has some negative implications for certain potential applications. And there is a transaction fee, which is the cost of holding Steem while it is debased 9X more than SP (since SP can't be transacted). A rate limit can only be effective along with size limitations. Otherwise if you have, say, a rate limit of 1 post per second per account, but no size limitations, then -with one account -you can make 86400 txs per day -let's assume 20kb size =1.7gb spam. If the txs are ike 100kb, that's 8.6gb per day. At a more restrictive 2 sec between txs / 2kb per tx, you have 43200 txs per day x 2kb = 86mb. For a single account. If someone buys 100 such accounts, it's 8.6gb per day. I'm really curious on how no fees can work. Blockchains are good, but not really efficient in dealing with spam. |
|
|
|
Potential issues that I came across today 1) Someone pointed out the fact that steemit has no fees. My question was, ok, then how does it prevent spam? 2) 10% interest on Steem Dollars I think 10% interest on SD is net-negative for the system unless I'm overlooking something (it's possible that I do). |
|
|
|
|
After thinking of it, I think it's unlikely the issue of "just rewards" to be solved by a single-dimensional algorithm.
Meaning, that it will probably require a multi-tiered approach by combining things like
a) author long-term "reputation"
b) author ratings by large or appointed curators who may do this manually
c) post ratings with something like a star system which build (a)
d) voting
...then all these should be weight-combined so that the first page displays not the highest earner (unless asked so by the drop down filter), but the higher combined quality/voting.
Whether segmentation of interest groups plays a role, I don't know. What I do know, is that the algorithm will have to evolve - and it will.
Another idea that sprung to mind, was the "request" of a user to be "evaluated" for quality. After writing his post down and before pressing submit, user pays a fixed amount of STEEM (like 1-2-5 steem) to apply for a "curators review" within the next 30 minutes or so... (money goes to curator or curators - no matter what the curator decides), and the post then gets a "quality multiplier" depending what the curator decided. Then the quality post starts at a different "base" level compared to the normal posts and thus attracts more attention from the get go. In case the curator-(p)reviewer misbehaves and the quality of the post is crap, a flagging/downvoting will remove a multiple of what the curator gained.
|
|
|
|
Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.
Let's walk this through. I run across an online game that I want to play. I have to open a payment channel, and prefund it with as much BTC as I think I'm likely to spend playing this game. What's to prevent me from simply sending this macro-payment straight to the game site? Why involve LN? I'm making different assumptions I guess. You assume one-way payments, I was thinking of a more amphidromous relationship where the player does something and get paid, or where he wants to make a payment for something small, etc. Betting or casino games are also like that because you can win and lose all the time. For now the problem (in games, not casinos) can be solved with use of ingame currency that is different from BTC, so that's the aggregation mechanism so to speak. But you can then make btc as the ingame currency. |
|
|
|
Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network. Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application. Or how bank clearing houses work. It's really the only way to scale it properly. Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC. Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks. Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible: Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution. Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic). Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there? So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first. In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand. Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too. I'm of the opinion that the long-term goal of BTC+technology should be to ...eliminate the need for things like LN - but work with them while they are needed. |
|
|
|
I have a question and need some clarification:
Where does the reward money from upvoting come from?
Is it solely based on speculators money on the exchanges?
It comes from new coin supply. Every day new steem tokens are issued and some of it go to content creation. |
|
|
|
Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network. Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application. Or how bank clearing houses work. It's really the only way to scale it properly. Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC. Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks. Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible: Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
|
|
|
|
A day is good. Anything less than that is bullshit and distorted. For example if we start isolating time frames, I can show you the last blocks
421405 4 minutes 2775 32,406.06 BTC BTCC Pool 997.1
421404 28 minutes 782 6,553.55 BTC Slush 998.18
421403 28 minutes 1759 14,162.17 BTC BitFury 998.19
421402 34 minutes 1992 18,610.63 BTC F2Pool 999.81
421401 35 minutes 2027 18,207.23 BTC F2Pool 999.87
421400 36 minutes 2841 39,982.53 BTC BW.COM 998.15
Are those the usual value /transaction ? Seems like an average of 10 btc /t I believe it includes some "hot wallet" activity of exchanges. Some hot wallets operate like this: You request a 1 btc withdrawal, I request 3 btc withdrawal, another requests 4 btc withdrawal Hot wallet is at 1000 btc so it does -1 for your withdrawal and 999 btc as change to a new address. Then the 999 btc change sends me 3 and has 996 as change. Then it sends 4 to the next withdrawal and keeps 992 as change. It does that until the hot wallet is exhausted of funds. Now it is possible that instead of having the actual tx (the 1, 3, 4 btc transfers) count as volume, the change is counted as volume - because the change is far larger. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
