αυτό στο αφιερώνω

https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/760198797301514240

Το steem ειναι ισως το mono alt που δε χρειαζεται να βαλεις ουτε 1 cent για να βγαλεις λεφτα. Αρκει να μη το δεις ως altcoin αλλα ως πλατφορμα στυλ reddit.

Bloggαρεις, πληρωνεσαι, τελος. Εβαλες 0 μεσα, εβγαλες κατι στη τσεπη. Δε σ'ενδιαφερει ουτε ποιος αγοραζει, ουτε ποιος πουλαει, ουτε τιποτα. Ειναι ευκολο να βγαλεις λεφτα? Αμα ασχοληθεις και εχεις κατι να πεις, ναι, πολυ ευκολο. Αυτο βλεπω ως προσωπικη εμπειρια. Δεν εχω βαλει ουτε σεντ (ως επενδυση). Και ομως χρημα βγαινει. Μπορει να γραψεις ενα σχολιο σε ενα θρεντ και να παρεις 200-300$ απ'το comment (μου χει συμβει 3-4 φορες). Γελαει ο κοσμος.

Αν παλι το βλεπεις επενδυτικα, τοτε αυτο διαφερει. Εκει μπορει να σ'ενοχλουν ζητηματα οπως η υφισταμενη κατανομη, ο πληθωρισμος κτλ κτλ. Ε απλα δεν επενδυεις.

Θεωρητικα δεν ειναι προς το (στενο οικονομικο) συμφερον οσων συμμετεχουν στο steem να πουν σε αλλους "μαγκες ελατε και εσεις" γιατι οσο λιγοτεροι συμμετεχουν, τοσο μεγαλυτερο το ποσοστο των rewards που πανε αναλογικα στους υφισταμενους χρηστες. Οπότε οποιος πιστευει οτι ειναι scam δε κανει κακο στους ηδη υπαρχοντες χρηστες - καλο τους κανει που δε συμμετεχει. Και δεν εχει λογο ο χρηστης να κατσει να πεισει τον skeptic οτι δεν ειναι scam. Του λεει καλα κατσε εσυ να φωναζεις scam, scam, scam οσο εγω βγαζω bitcoiiiinssss

I already explained to everyone (especially smooth) upthread why I think it will not drop. Don't forget the 80% attrition rate and the 59 million tokens held by Steemit Inc. I will not repeat those points again. It is getting redundant.

Dan has had years to develop his blockchain solution. We've got a pretty good idea of what he has come up with and where his design instincts go. Can they invent something better? Can someone else who competes with them? Will the sky fall down tomorrow? Questions. Not answers.

Voters can't change the mayor when he controls more than 50% of the vote. And forking is illegal for Steem. Checkmate.

Let's stay on fact. Upthread smooth and I (and r0ach) discussed the technical reasons why it can't increase. As as for the game theory, you can have the same number of owners (of stake) implementing 1000 servers, it is still three guys in control.

Did you read the linked debate? My entire point is that Dan, Ned, and Steemit Inc. hypothetically can be sued to censor the blockchain itself. They have enough stake to choose the 19 witnesses. And it is illegal to fork Steem. Checkmate.


Lol, "19 witnesses" sounds like a biblical story.

...to do a fairer distribution.

Feedback on the following name idea?

peerbrary
peerbase

I am visualizing all media content and even games/apps going here, not just blogs. It is our collective blockchain database which nobody owns.

I am not sure if the above names will ring with any meaning for the masses, but neither did 'blog' when it was first coined. It is important to select a name that over time it becomes very distinct from copycats. And over time users come to associate the name with something of importance.


Users are coming for a combination of inspirations:

1. Nobody owns the content. The users own the site.
2. Instead of the money going to Facebook, they can gift this money (love) to each other by interacting and upvoting good content.
3. They can contribute content and maybe it even becomes a vocation.

The #altcoin Ponzi explained in one easy chart. Bitcoin bagholders deposit BTC to pay earlier altcoin users.

Btc<==>Altcoin

What about mafia ? What about misuse of blockchain technology.

no one knows it is scam or not until the time will answers but as long as we can get profit on there, why not? the best part is, post on there is free and we can use it until it gets scam.

I've have been battling a chronic illness for the past 4+ years

...due to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)

I am pretty sure I have Multiple Sclerosis-like scarring

Your "FUD" are my facts. It will end just the same as all those Ethereum supporters who said similarly. And then I had the last Bruce Wanker laugh on them, and eventually on you too.


Do you think I care? I am just pointing you to the mirror. I don't want to join your circle-jerk. If you had something really viable that wasn't going to hurt many people as The DAO did, then I would be enthusiastic. Steem's collapse will be more interesting than The DAO in that we will have the names of the victims. We'll be able to compile stories of mothers who handed money to insiders that they could have spent on their children. It will be the posterchild of blockchains used to explain to the masses why blockchains are predatory scams wrapped in fantastical delusions of grandeur.


You are equating (as equals) my analysis (some Judging, but it is largely Thinking and some iNtuition) of an inanimate object to which you happen to be apparently very attached to, with your Judging of a person (myself). Which btw, is another shard of evidence of the delusional helium in the air of those supporting Steemit.

Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Edit: I guess you didn't notice I was awake 24 hours straight yesterday (and given my illness that is like saying you had been awake for 48 hours straight). And written I don't know how many detailed technical and marketing analysis BCT posts yesterday.

You can criticize those of us who put our real photo and LinkedIn account online

yet you are hiding you weasel. You dish it out but can you also allow yourself to be exposed?

Ah you are INTJ and I am ENTP, so that explains some of the reason we are not going to get along well. You hide and judge. I discuss and perceive.

It is all about production. That is all that will matter in the end.

That is why I don't want to join some clusterfuck circle-jerk one-size-fits-all ("winner take all" power vacuum) where I have to kiss ass on INTJs. You should be filtered out of my coterie and myself filtered out of yours. You go hang out with your INTJ types and I will go hang out with the extroverts who prefer production and discussion over judgemental impossible perfection.

So we both had a mistake.

anonymint ·  3 hours ago
The 5% calculation appears to me incorrect. I calculate 15 - 21%. You are not factoring for example the 50% payout in STEEM POWER.

arhag  ·  35 minutes ago
No, I am factoring in the payouts in Steem Power. A far more sophisticated analysis of the math is necessary to get more accurate numbers in more realistic scenarios, but I am pretty sure the numbers you have calculated are incorrect. However, by being slightly more careful in my analysis (rather than the first approximation I did for the OP), I find that my original number of 5% was also too low of an estimate in the worst case scenario. It is really more like 6.7%.

First, as I mention before, I am not factoring in the effect of price changes and Steem Dollar conversions on STEEM supply (or the virtual supply used in the code). Trying to factor that in makes things too complicated and requires assuming models for how the price of STEEM will change and how people will convert Steem Dollars. To greatly simplify the analysis I assume that people convert Steem Dollars into STEEM as soon as possible and at the same price at which it was issued (actually I really go further and assume the blockchain skips a step and just gives the bloggers the reward as STEEM rather than Steem Dollars so that they can then convert to Steem Power as soon as possible).

Second, I am looking at the worst case (in terms of maximum inflation of Steem Power) by assuming nearly all of the STEEM is kept in Steem Power at all times. Meaning if people receive rewards in any other form, they convert it into Steem Power as soon as possible.

Converting STEEM into Steem Power (i.e. VESTs) does not change the ratio of STEEM in the vest pool to the total amount of VESTs, whether done by the user or done by the blockchain directly. The only thing that changes (specifically increases) that ratio is when the blockchain directly adds STEEM it issued into the vest pool without creating a corresponding amount of VESTs.

If we define S to be the current virtual supply of STEEM (which with the assumptions above is also exactly the amount of STEEM in the vest pool), then we can approximately say that the blockchain creates 7.894E-5 * S STEEM each hour (90% of which is added directly into the vest pool and the other 10% is given out as rewards which are ultimately all, since this is the worst case scenario we are looking at, converted into Steem Power).

Let S_0 be the virtual supply of STEEM at the start of the year period that we will be analyzing. Let S_n be the virtual supply of STEEM n hours after that start time. Then we can write that S_n = S_0 * (1 + 7.894E-5)^n.

The recurrence relation for updating the total outstanding amount of VEST tokens V_{n+1}(at the time n+1 hours after the start time) is given by

V_{n+1} = V_n (1 + \frac{\Delta s_n}{S_n})
where \Delta s_n is total net amount of STEEM converted into Steem Power (VESTs) within the corresponding hour (because I am lumping these conversions into hour intervals it is actually just an approximation of the real update rule, but good enough for our purposes). The quantity \Delta s_n is given by 7.894E-6 * S_n, since in this worst case scenario I assume all STEEM created for distribution as rewards (the 10% of the total amount created) will all be converted back into Steem Power. I can use the recurrence relation above to write an expression for V_n:

V_n = V_0 ( 1 + 7.894E-6)^n
If a user initially holds v VESTs, which is a fraction f of the total VESTs at that time (so v = f * V_0), then after a year (n = 8766) the total virtual supply of STEEM will be S_{8766} = 2 * S_0 and the total outstanding amount of VEST tokens will be V_{8766} = (1.07165 )* V_0. And so the new fraction of total VESTs the user will hold (assuming they received no more VESTs through rewards or powering up) is f' = v / V_{8766} = 0.93314 * f, which corresponds to a 6.7% decrease over the year in the user's fractional ownership of VEST (and therefore their fractional ownership of the marketcap of STEEM in this worst case scenario). So, if the market cap of STEEM were to stay constant (in USD), the user would need to buy up approximately 6.7% of their holding value each year to maintain the same USD value they started with, thus we can say it amounts to a 6.7% wealth tax (via a hidden inflation tax) on their Steem Power holdings. But this is the worst case scenario where all STEEM is held in Steem Power. In reality, not all of it will be held as Steem Power, and so the actual wealth tax rate for Steem Power holders should be less than 6.7% (again assuming we ignore other complicated effects left out of the above analysis like the Steem Dollar conversion effect).

Unfortunately, since the OP has already paid out, I cannot edit it to correct the 5% number to 6.7%.