Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[iamnotback]

Steem issued the shares via PoW and mined them themselves as a legal loophole instead of IPO.

What legal loophole

Steem (and its founding whales at the helm) failed to qualify for the criteria needed to not be classified as an investment security according to the Howey test, so that investors' expectations aren't secured for future gains by a controlling party:

• decentralized, leaderless organization
• forks allowed (Steem license prevents this)
• widely held so that investors so no party effectively controls the trading market

Afaics, there is nothing illegal about issuing tokens to yourself in a premine when you launch a decentralized, leaderless, open source project unless by doing so you destroy one of the criteria above.

Edit: I guess you could argue that by mining for their personal shares, then even though the Steemit Inc. corporation is legally culpable to have registered the shares given the failure to qualify for the above criteria, then at least @dan, @dantheman, and @ned, aren't legally complicit.

[r0ach]

Steem issued the shares via PoW and mined them themselves as a legal loophole instead of IPO.

What legal loophole

Steem (and its founding whales at the helm) failed to qualify for the criteria needed to not be classified as an investment security according to the Howey test, so that investors' expectations aren't secured for future gains by a controlling party:

• decentralized, leaderless organization
• forks allowed (Steem license prevents this)
• widely held so that investors so no party effectively controls the trading market

Afaics, there is nothing illegal about issuing tokens to yourself in a premine when you launch a decentralized, leaderless, open source project unless by doing so you destroy one of the criteria above.

Edit: I guess you could argue that by mining for their personal shares, then even though the Steemit Inc. corporation is legally culpable to have registered the shares given the failure to qualify for the above criteria, then at least @dan, @dantheman, and @ned, aren't legally complicit.

I think you kind of stretch things to the extreme in terms of legal culpability to the point where you would likely be indicting Satoshi as a pump and dump artist, which is probably why he's anonymous.

In other news, I found Charles Hoskinson's clone on Steem (gif movie by username "rahmat"): 

https://steemit.com/recipes/@aimeeathome/the-secret-to-the-best-crisp-on-the-outside-chewy-in-the-centre-chocolate-chip-cookies

[iamnotback]

Also the other bound is afaics Steem can't be sharded (at least one reason appears to be that voting is a real-time globalized calculation so eventual consistency is not compatible). You've got to funnel everything through one witnesses at a time, round-robin. This is going to cause scaling and reliability problems. Just wait.

Currently there isn't much "real-time" in voting. The real time display is just an indicator; consensus payouts are made only when voting is quiescent for some period, so perhaps with some design changes eventual consistency could be worked in. It wouldn't work exactly as currently implemented so I agree there.

I mean I presume (haven't verified in the source code) there are real-time metrics regardless of when those metrics are tallied globally into voting and curation rewards, e.g. the rate of voting to determine each voter's voting power penalty (for voting too often).

So if one shard is lying to the other validators, the Nash equilibrium of the blockchain is destroyed because the shards are not independent as required until eventual consistency. The prior sentence could be giving you some hint into how I claim to have improved Satoshi's design so that not all validators (witnesses) must validate all transactions on all shards.

Although it may (?) be possible to do some global voting weightings that are confirmed cross-sharding without waiting for eventual consistency, these must have game theories such that because they can't be reverted when shards lie then there must be no advantage to lying. Otherwise all shards have to trust each other (without validating, else the advantage is lost of avoiding O(n²) validation scaling by sharding) which is not a Nash equilibrium. Note I can't see how to do those for global voting weightings, but maybe (?) someone else can devise a way.

The sharding seems to be more critically needed (eventually) to scale the very high TPS activity such as voting and comments (and eventually transfers), but maybe not for blog posts.

[AlexGR]

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers

Seems like we'll be having a reputation system to fight of spam/bots.

[iamnotback]

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers

Seems like we'll be having a reputation system to fight of spam/bots.

1. Daniel Larimer admits the Steem blockchain is not decentralized, permissionless, resilient because it is effectively controlled by Steemit Inc.:

All of your content will be available on the blockchain and will be visible to those who want to see it (unless we are required by law to take it down).

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

3. The more paramount filter needed is to stop Sybil attacks. I was preparing to write about this in my next post in this thread.

[r0ach]

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers

Seems like we'll be having a reputation system to fight of spam/bots.

I was wondering what the hell his solution for that would be.  The obvious answer is being required to burn a fee to post.  His solution is far too complex and can have innocent users gamed or their speech suppressed imo...

[iamnotback]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

[generalizethis]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

Is the content removed from the blockchain? If it all stays, can't someone create steemit uncensored?

[iamnotback]

In my and others' opinion, Steem appears to be dying due to the voting algorithm:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dv8silencersteem/diagram-of-steem-along-with-helpful-faqs-and-answers#@anonymint/re-dv8silencersteem-diagram-of-steem-along-with-helpful-faqs-and-answers-20160730t004829817z

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dv8silencersteem/how-rate-of-posting-affects-content-award-and-how-to-calculate-the-penalty-if-you-have-one-detailed#@satanic.stoner/re-dv8silencersteem-how-rate-of-posting-affects-content-award-and-how-to-calculate-the-penalty-if-you-have-one-detailed-20160729t201930175z

So around this lady might develop a cosplaying sub-community which could upsell related games and paraphernalia:

https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@tayla.barter/hi-steemit-i-am-tayla-barter-kinpatsu-cosplayer-and-artist

But there need to be incentives and features to promote creation of sub-communities.


This lady wants to work creatively as a freelancer, and she seems to think Steemit maybe helping her to achieve that goal:

https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@diana.catherine/new-introduceyourself-post-and-info-about-me-i-still-think-the-founders-are-geniuses

We've probably lost the first one, as expected there is no way for her to build a cosplaying community within Steem's small usership and inadequate feature set:

https://steemit.com/@tayla.barter

The second lady is succeeding because she is articulate and she writes to the general audience of Steemit (and she has a lot of applicable experience). I even upvoted her latest blog about the "client from hell".

Another lady I highlighted upthread, has indicated she will stay tuned in for more features applicable to her blog:

https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@jenelyn/hi-i-m-jenelyn-i-m-a-freelance-writer-newly-found-steemit-nerd-and-immigrant-to-the-us-this-is-my-story#@anonymint/re-jenelyn-re-anonymint-re-jenelyn-hi-i-m-jenelyn-i-m-a-freelance-writer-newly-found-steemit-nerd-and-immigrant-to-the-us-this-is-my-story-20160727t203311742z

[iamnotback]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

Is the content removed from the blockchain? If it all stays, can't someone create steemit uncensored?

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.

[chryspano]

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.

I think you started talking nonsene once again, since when voters have to change their vote to a "mayor" if this mayor is "evil" in the eyes of a goverment?

As for the 19 witnennes(number can increase in the future) you perhaps think that the 3 bitcoin mining pools is a better alternative, lol!

[seedtrue]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

Is the content removed from the blockchain? If it all stays, can't someone create steemit uncensored?

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.

No matter if you get sued or not. You can't erase stuff from the blockchain. It will always be there. It is not like they can go to every single person that runs a node, confiscate their equipment, and then release a new clean blockchain. That is not how any of this works.

[iamnotback]

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.

I think you started talking nonsene once again, since when voters have to change their vote to a "mayor" if this mayor is "evil" in the eyes of a goverment?

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

As for the 19 witnennes(number can increase in the future) you perhaps think that the 3 bitcoin mining pools is a better alternative, lol!

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.

[generalizethis]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

Is the content removed from the blockchain? If it all stays, can't someone create steemit uncensored?

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.

Then create a decentralized version already--I doubt you're gonna argue them into a new design. A decentralized and uncensored content platform is something we all should get behind. And likely good for steem--without the threat of a decentralized, opensource, uncensored platform, TPTB have no reason not to attack the only game in town and replace it with a game more to their liking.

[iamnotback]

2. Globalized reputation-based elision can (typically) becomes a groupthink censorship. If instead they implemented like-mindness groupings for rankings (something along the lines of my first blog post on Steemit), there could be elision without globalized (one-size-fits-all) groupthink censorship.

First proof is the first contentious issue between Dan and myself on Steemit:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/notice-to-bot-spammers#@anonymint/re-dantheman-re-anonymint-re-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers-20160729t230945437z

Is the content removed from the blockchain? If it all stays, can't someone create steemit uncensored?

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.

No matter if you get sued or not. You can't erase stuff from the blockchain. It will always be there. It is not like they can go to every single person that runs a node, confiscate their equipment, and then release a new clean blockchain. That is not how any of this works.

Very few people will be able to run a full node (that has all the data) if this scales up to Google's or Facebook's size.

And you are not allowed to run a fork and offer that data published to the world. The license prevents it. You are advocating that people will publish data to the Internet within the existing protocol and incriminate themselves.

Just because you have some data stored on your full node, doesn't mean you can legally publish it within the existing protocol. You'd have to go develop a new blockchain to publish it with and gain adoption. Before that happens, someone will have already replaced Steem with an open source, fair distribution, forkable licensed project.

I agree with you that probably all the data can be retained in any solution that replaces Steem, if the solution desires to do so. But that is also not a certainty that any new competitor project would grandfather the prior data. The data won't be lost, but it may have no audience any more, so that is nearly the same as lost. The Internet is overloaded with data that most people never will see.

[iamnotback]

Then create a decentralized version already--I doubt you're gonna argue them into a new design. A decentralized and uncensored content platform is something we all should get behind.

So you admit you were wrong telling me (and others) we have no chance to compete with Steem?

Please in the future realize that I may be thinking of details that you are not.

Hey no animosity intended. Just a little bit of mutual respect desired.

[chryspano]

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

In the rare case that govs go really nuts, voters could vote for other mayors and not themselves, and afaik this 50% you are talking about is going to drop rapidly, so your "arguments" (or should I say FUDs) are not valid.

As for the 19 witnennes(number can increase in the future) you perhaps think that the 3 bitcoin mining pools is a better alternative, lol!

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.

Yes, you discussed it and that's your opinion today

[generalizethis]

Then create a decentralized version already--I doubt you're gonna argue them into a new design. A decentralized and uncensored content platform is something we all should get behind.

So you admit you were wrong telling me (and others) we have no chance to compete with Steem?

Please in the future realize that I may be thinking of details that you are not.

Hey no animosity intended. Just a little bit of mutual respect desired.

That is not what I said or implied: I believe a decentralized and uncensored platform would be openbazzar to steemit's amazon (hopefully that can't be misread).

[iamnotback]

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

In the rare case that govs go really nuts, voters could vote for other mayors and not themselves, and afaik this 50% you are talking about is going to drop rapidly, so your "arguments" (or should I say FUDs) are not valid.

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.

As for the 19 witnennes(number can increase in the future) you perhaps think that the 3 bitcoin mining pools is a better alternative, lol!

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.

Yes, you discussed it and that's your opinion today

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.

Also don't forget the power+inertia of vested interests.

[iamnotback]

It's up to the voter to determine if they are sufficiently convinced and if their upvote should be given.

KYC? Video verification? No need for all these.

I'll respond to this in the future. For now I will just say I am confident I can convince you that it is absolutely necessary (but not immediately on signup as that would make a horrific attrition rate).

Without video KYC, there is no way to stop the identity theft and copyright infringement issues, because there is no way to hold anyone responsible for what they post.

Even if we attain a decentralized, permissionless blockchain, if we have no way to identify posters of content, then it can become illegal to host a full blockchain node because those infringed have to deal with Whac-A-Mole against innumerable Sybils and will instead be forced to petition the government for a complete ban of the blockchain protocol. We have to be able to move the enforcement out to the ends where individual posters can be sued. Once we can identify posters with their national identification (666) number then the government can just eventually turn off their number so they can't post to the Internet any more. I don't really like where this is headed, but I don't see any way around it, the Bible appears to be correct. My hope is that with KYC, the community can develop a self-policing system to blacklist certain repeat offenders (after much careful deliberation), so that it doesn't fall into the lap of the government and 666 number.

Additionally with out video KYC, there is no way to prevent whales from splitting their voting power to avoid any attempt to improve the otherwise what appears to be the insolubly broken voting algorithm by for example penalizing whales for colluding (and other reasons I will not mention because it would reveal some design improvements I am contemplating).