Steem pyramid scheme revealed

[iamnotback]

The STEEM inflation emission curve will mirror that of bitcoin.

Its not emission that matters damn college analysts, its inactivity in markets that burns the least shred of credibility theyve ever had.

If u wanna write a digest probing their credibility ask them first to sustain the irregular 5-month-long uptrending trip back to 0.003.

What will happen to the STEEM price, when the digital currency speculators are finally allowed to buy and hold without the fear of any inflation rate beyond that of bitcoin.

Means nothing when theres no demand. See the answer above. No one is questioning the supply discharge since its unrelated to inactivity in markets. Few dudes who invested had probably been in denial for quite a while when exited. Poor asses.

STEEM already does half the transactional volume as bitcoin, and it's market cap is 1/5OOth of bitcoin's.  Which way are these natural free market numbers going next?

Is a lunatic chain, and fucked up big time. None of the numbers are indicative of the cap growth relative to the quantity of crisp cash pooled in. In laymen terms, $1 buy can flip the cap of any chain to $1000 trillion. Assuming that u either own the whole supply or run a private chain.

I wont cite another rambling u posted. Basically it carries the same message.

It is true that the design has piled up a huge supply of bloggers who need to cash out (for their travels, airplane tickets, art supplies, etc) and a couple of dozen whales who need to cash out to fund R&D, marketing, salaries, investments in the ecosystem, etc.. Because it was never organized as a chain of investors and speculators on the asset STEEM, but rather as a way to fund everyone's (bloggers and whales) interests and goals. In other words, everyone putting their hand in the kitty and no paradigm for disciplined focus of prioritized expenditures budgeting.

And they killed the incentive for anyone rational to bring new cash into the system, because of both that huge supply of demand to cash out and the huge relative dilution on those who don't lockup their money for 2 years (1 year weighted average).

It does seem late innings to try to rectify those imbalances.

Nevertheless, there is a very key and simple change they could make which would probably create significant speculative interest. If they will pay me enough ($1000+), I will share my idea. The idea is so simple, they should be able to think of it.

[iamnotback]

banano, while I agree with the premise that there will be strong demand for a censorship resistant system of publishing and social networking, it is also true that we can't give away for free what isn't free.

The truthcoin.info link is explaining that the opportunity cost of not renting your centralized attack power is not an equilibrium. This applies to Steem and DPoS. (my white paper goes into more detail about this)

Steem and DPoS has one foot in the arena. They may not have the winning combination. We'll see...

[smooth]

Latest update on the economic model hard fork. I expect this to be enacted without additional significant changes (my opinion only).

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes

[limaphii]

Hey all. Take a small break and check out my latest blog. I appreciate the views, all upvotes and new followers. I follow back and click on my followers posts as well as upvote. Please give me a read https://steemit.com/trump/@coexist/lets-coexist-blog-4

Thank you in advance,

Phil Lima

[iamnotback]

banano, while I agree with the premise that there will be strong demand for a censorship resistant system of publishing and social networking, it is also true that we can't give away for free what isn't free.

Every post on Steemit is but a funding proposal, a kickstarter if you will.  And although greedy people think that your time is worthless, they are wrong.

You are repeating what I already wrote (emphasized in bold in the quote below):

Proof-of-work (PoW) is not the only objective metric of work.

And conflating the work value of issuance with the security of the global ledger is not a necessity, rather just an error of those who lack insight.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

But what is being given away from free is the whales control the dilution of my 5000 STEEM, because by mathematical necessity the voting can't be linear without causing Sybil attacks:

https://steemit.com/steem/@anonymint/blog-rewards-can-t-be-widely-distributed

So the problem is voting can never be an objective metric of rewarding work, thus giving away for free that which is not free.

And how could we forget the first law of the universe:

How could you forget that I already figured out a long time ago, what you are accusing me now of forgetting  

(be careful with presuming you are so clever that you thought of something that I haven't)

[hcbfs]

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

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

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


Those are steem founders's wallets, they own a shit loads of steem yes i know. They own about 80% of steem .


You know what's funny is that they tell you to power up but they are powering down all 3 accounts and cashing out $2 Millions every week.

And fools on poloniex are buying up all the steems hahah and best of all the founders's money is growing extremely fast so they have essentially set up a system where they could cash out $2M every week for life until the ponzi come crashing down of course but these devs are fucking geniuses.
It doesn't end there though, they have designed a system where they have so much voting power compared to everyone else that they decide where the pool's money is being allocated, so if they want to pay themselves and their buddies they can do it just by a mouse click.
They can also create sockpuppets account and vote for themselves.It's like a fucking cartel, they are the first crypto mafia.
They also get to decide what goes on the front page so obviously they chose to upvote boobs and steem praise, there is nothing better than vagina to prop up a massive bubble.


In 3 years all the new steem power that was created out of thin air to enrich the devs will be detroyed at a ratio of 10 to 1. So if you have 10 SP they will burn 9 from you and everyone else including themselves, But they don't care becasue in 3 years the devs will be in their private yacht  sipping mojito with lots of bitches while you will be powering down but it's gonna be too late my friend.

And you know what they say when you ask but why are you destroying 90% of my wealth in 3 year? They say don't worry  hopefully the price will increase to make up for it rofl It will not because they would have crashed it to pay for the yatch lol

RIP steem power holders.

http://thestringpuller.com/2016/07/a-steeming-bubble/


edit : Dan has deleted transaction history on one of his account.  https://steemit.com/@steem/transfers

Money senta few days ago from https://steemit.com/@steemit/transfers is not showing as received on the steem account like it usually does. I don't know exactly why he doesn't want us to see the transactions but it looks like he is trying to hide something. Fishy


edit 2 : As predicted Steemit founders cashing out big time, they have been crashing the price from 5$ to 0.8$ and they are gonna crash it to pennies until there are no more investors to milk from.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@magnebit/steem-price-is-being-pushed-down-by-1-person-speculation-on-why-and-where-it-may-end-up

RIP steem power holders

steem is a joke

[Zer0Sum]

Latest update on the economic model hard fork. I expect this to be enacted without additional significant changes (my opinion only).

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes

I was really obvious by August that the Steemit economic model was a fiasco...
And it took 4 months to "review" and post these half-measures? Are Dan and Ned on drugs?

If there is a truism in crypto, it's all about momentum...
Once you lose it, once you go into a Death Spiral, a major rebranding is the only option...
(Even Ethereum has lost all momentum due to mismanagement, spinning it's wheels for 6 months... desperate for an App, any App).

It's telling that cynically tweeking some algos on a 500,000 to 13,000 sat Death Spiral (down 97.5% in STEEM, maybe 80% in SP)...
Actually brings applause and praise and supplication from the 1,000 pinheads left on Steemit...
Along with the usual nonsense comparing Steemit to "the early days of Facebook"   

Amazingly, the platform is still worth $25,000,000 due to a modern, stable crypto network...
In the real world adults could salvage some value by bringing in actual professionals...
Who would replace zero-value random, amateur blogging with something the world actually wants.

[Gash]

The STEEM inflation emission curve will mirror that of bitcoin.

Its not emission that matters damn college analysts, its inactivity in markets that burns the least shred of credibility theyve ever had.

If u wanna write a digest probing their credibility ask them first to sustain the irregular 5-month-long uptrending trip back to 0.003.

Imagine how the other 99% feel (the majority of hunmans who are not as exceptional as you).  

STEEEM is designed to please the 99% not the 1% which is why you can't see why STEEM is valuable to the rest of the humans in the world.  Steemit cares not for people like you, and it is exactly why we made the 110% inflation to speculators (long term STEEM POWER supporters unaffected) feature (not a bug)(because it bugs people like you)(not me, I am not bugged at all by the low STEEM price, in fact, I hope it falls further!!).  My wordsp on the STEEM chain.

Well, Jared Michael, before u talk to me brah u have to comprehend this fanky full of complexity rule that breaks my nap every night and is apparently a threat to faint me out one day if I fail to repair my basin: dont trip me out when Im taking a shower, thats dangerous shit

After all, u da boy, sure thing u know when to come and leave, dont ya? Nah bro, its a fucking sarcasm and Im being whimsical. What Im saying is u need to listen, Jared, seriously, sometimes u just need to listen...

STEEM is about allowing uncensorable global communication.  Us Ed Snowdens of the world are only looking for a place where we can speak freely without fear of being censored.  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/15/twitter-suspends-alt-right-accounts/93943194/

Do ypu think that political activists like me and Julian Assange care about money or surviving the night?

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/

Jared... Putin lied. Of true thruths Im laughing in the aisles at pees believing in a straightforward speech in which Putin informed the audience he has no interest in catechizing Mr Snowden or providing a permanent refuge for him under exemption of russia's regulatory changes.

The informations of paramount importance belonging to russian secret service are stored on Narkiv, unsafe place for surfing unless u run Tails, and make sure russians dont track ur browser header signatures; get ur ass over there and find the deathnotes of a former FSB agent outlining Mr. Snowden's progressive career in russia, starting at a point he crossed Tarbagan-Dakh over a year ago and ending with his departure to Chechnya where he and ramzan kadyrov fused into one symbiotic organism. Snowden is not a whistleblower anymore... but u still need to listen.

Do you own an automoobile?

I own a pile of Munich bills.

Yes, the facts show that you are indeed a rich 1%er.

Paraphrase. See above. U have to make sure u know when to come and leave so as to avoid getting the door slap ur ass on the way back, Jared. When u refer to 1% make sure to specify if thats the percentage indicative of a global / local average wage, net worth, portfolio depth, paycheck size. To constitute 1% among the folks with the highest net worth in the US, $7 million net worth would be imperative.

It's common knowledge among smart people like smooth and yourself that nothing but vaporware can give you the speed and scalability of Graphene DPOS.

Paraphrase. Can pay $10 cents per hour (enough to rent back ur classmates' bedchamber for another month) if that helps in correcting walls of incoherent babbling. For peeps watching the show Graphene seems to be the fastest solution available to bearers of crypto today, and is understandably being positioned as the tech that stood the test of time. Hurdle to investing is the asshole-introvert running the show / messing with angel money at his peril. Not sure what hes trying to accomplish there but good luck to him in getting this over with.

Why do you think that NOW we are finally deciding to open the cage to let you out (power down period from 2 yers to 3 months and bitcoin level inflation being applied)?

Ur imagination seems fair and balanced.

WE are actually smarter than the speculators

Sure, dont get anxious.

STEEM is the greatest invention for free speech since the printing press.

Ever heard the phrase "knowledge is power?"

Of course you have.

Well, my son, that is the answer to the previous question "why did the printing press revolutionize humanity"

See, you had the answers inside you all along but were too distracted by your greed and desire to obtain money to buy some slaves that you could not see it as clear as it is being revealed to you now.

Feel that?  That is the power of knowledge, and you are experiencing it first hand!

Seems like a college bum's clamoring for luxury stuff underlines some unemployment issues u be fighting at present.

Truthcoin article seemed to impress u to some extent since u were used to obviously reiterating most of the paragraphs taken from there.

Look. Acting like an ewe, fucking nuts to the work of others, praising the goddess for giving u the PC and browser to examine the advantages of DPOS over the number of simplified approaches to block validation wont make ur 0.006 long close at the base price.

Sheeple like u is being walked down the lawn. Many men are responsible for revolutionary breakthroughs in the history of mankind. Dont really mention Gutenberg here when u talk clown slug shitcoin u longed this summer being impressed by other's summary on dpos. Is not the time and place for such mentions. Curtain time.

We (the community of steemers) were not going to let you dump all your shares at half a billion market cap.

We? Since u are the community, use I. I is singular. Its better than we, trust me.

But now you are free to dump all your shares at $22 million cap.  Now you realize why.

I already do Jared, surely. Sadly I cant see ur facial expression.

The rest of ur post has to be overlaid on this.

No need to mute the sound, simply add ravings he wrote to subtitles. Looks organic:

[alyssa85]

Latest update on the economic model hard fork. I expect this to be enacted without additional significant changes (my opinion only).

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes

So is this definitely going ahead next week, or are they going to try to get some publicity for it first?

[Gash]

@bananos Attach ur MRI scan to the bottom of each post so people wont get dumbfounded.

[Gash]

@bananos The time has come to close ur 0.006 long.

[iamnotback]

Latest update on the economic model hard fork. I expect this to be enacted without additional significant changes (my opinion only).

https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/final-review-of-steem-economic-changes

I replied to you there to try to summarize the changes:

75% of inflation goes to authors and curators

What % of inflation goes to authors and curators now?

It is comparatively tiny, around 6.5%. However, the economic models are so different that is not really comparable.

Afaics, the system is almost identical for authors and curators but very different for SP and non-SP holders...

Per my prior blog (c.f. also @arhag's comments) about the preexisting inflation math, existing SP holders were not debased (i.e. not diluted, effectively a stock split for them) when the ratio of SP to the total money supply including non-SP was ~87%. Above that ratio, SP holders were being debased and below that ratio they were experiencing a positive interest rate. For this new proposal, the stock split ratio can be approximated roughly as (which doesn't account for keeping the ratio constant or the fact that existing SP holders are diluted by new SP holders, but this is a small difference in most scenarios):

x × 0.15 × 0.095 = (1-x) × 0.095

Which is again ~87% but that is 87% of ratio of non-SP to the total money supply, so ~13% if comparing the prior system. The other difference is that above and below that ~13% ratio, the effects are transposed, i.e. above is a positive interest rate for SP holders and below they are being debased but never more than 9.5%.

So if comparing the prior system to the proposed one, at the equivalent stock split ratio scenario, then SP holders are debased the same in both proposals and the author+curator rewards are also roughly the same at 0.75  × 9.5% = 7.1%. But it isn't likely that SP holders will only be ~13% of the money supply, although power down has been reduced to 13 weeks from 104. Thus the new proposal is likely to be much more dilutive. At the 95% ratio (what it was historically), SP holders are debased at roughly 8.8%. It is unlikely for the ratio to drop much unless the whales power down, but powering down wouldn't collapse the price if they aren't selling. So the real effect of this change is to debase the SP holders, so there really isn't any reason at all to power up. So we can expect everyone who can power down to do so, until the ratio reaches some level where the debasement rate on SP holders is much less than for non-SP holders. Although there might be a Prisoner's dilemma which every whale wants their SP to be powered up if the debasement is less. So the homeostasis is likely to be some where at a positive level of debasement for SP holders, but less than that of non-SP holders. Thus free market and kudos on a good design decision (actually is what I had planned to do, except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price).

The huge difference is that non-SP holders are only debased at 9.5% instead of in excess of 100% in the prior system.

The other huge difference longer-term is the debasement 9.5% APR decreases by 0.5% per year.

Note the likely reason for needing to drop the 104 weeks to 13 for power down, is because otherwise the existing SP holders have no way to lower the debasement rate of SP holders quickly by powering down. This is a dilemma.

tl;dr is stand on the sidelines and wait to scoop up very cheap STEEM after the dust settles.

[iamnotback]

Also another major flaw of DPoS is that exchanges can vote but they don't have the same vested interest (and they can be hacked), so that sort of destroys the notion that the whales don't want to attack their own coin because there isn't enough liquidity to short their huge stake. Well Steemit, Inc solved that problem by controlling majority of the stake, but for a real-world outcome DPoS can't suffice for that reason IMO.

Do you see any way to keep a DPOS asset off an exchange to restrict voting?

I thought about it some and didn't come up with anything...

There is a solution at least when your coins are not used as margin. It may have been proposed before?

This also fixes the problem with exchanges stealing funds.

That is sign to a script which says you can only spend those designated coins (which you've chosen to deposit with the exchange) to the exchange's address, unless the exchange has signed a release.

So when you trade on the exchange, you send the exchange a signature to release that many coins to the exchange. The exchange doesn't have to wait for confirmation on the blockchain, because the signer can't undo the signature nor double-spend it.

Thus you, but not the exchange, can vote with your stake until you've signed it over to the exchange.

Exchanges may not adopt this, because they love floating on your money. But its adoption and non-adoption would be a way of distinguishing the honest from the corrupt exchanges.

@smooth now you know I do sometimes share my ideas before I can implement them.

I believe this also would eliminate leveraged shorting if all users refused to give exchanges spending control over their coin balances and also refused to loan their coins. If you know that loaning your coins will always be a losing gambit, then you won't do it.   (I am purposefully not stating something  )

More such Arthur C. Clarke-esque “magic” is coming from me.

[1enterthebtc]

Wait until Steem forks strat showing up. Only with equal distribution. Steem will disappear.

[iamnotback]

The idea to switch to Ethereum's EquiHash might be justifiable as a short-term measure and also because apparently proof-of-work is not actually securing the Steem blockchain against 51% attacks any way.

But in general, I now that think “ASIC-resistant” proof-of-work (e.g. Monero and tromp's Cuckoo) is ill-advised because it is less secure (see the two instances of red text below):

Abstract: This paper posits that prior consensus ordering systems are winner-take-all power vacuums^† without a stable decentralized equilibrium. Satoshi’s proof-of-work (aka “PoW”)¹ and Bitshares’ Delegated Proof-of-Stake (aka “DPoS”)² are examined in some detail as plausible examples of this theory.

[redacted]

---

† _{Power vacuum in the context of this paper means the system has no viable mechanism to maintain an equilibrium of decentralized control and limit the snowballing effect of a vicious cycle feedback loop where influence (centralized control) in the system due to concentrated wealth and economies-of-scale, increases the concentration of the wealth and economies-of-scale in the system. The value of the resource to be captured far exceeds the unrecoverable portion of the (risk + opportunity + whatever) cost to capture it, the net value (analogous to a “selling price” minus cost) doesn't decrease with a decrease in demand from those who can compete to obtain it, and only the one with the most resources can capture it.}

[redacted]

4. Benign vs. Malignant Power-law Distribution

The centralized control in the system may be deleterious or innocuous.

The taxonomy of malignancy includes control that:

• breaks Nash equilibrium
• comprises a power vacuum
• degrades the desired system attributes: efficient, reliable, secure, permissionless, meritocratic, collaborative, impartial, and a level-playing-field

Nash equilibrium means that every participant’s best strategy is completely determined by transparent information, i.e. that there is no better strategy any participant could employ with access to the secret strategies of other participants. This doesn’t mean that other participants can’t have secret strategies, only that secrecy doesn’t render any participant’s choice of strategy sub-optimal.

Nash equilibrium doesn't necessarily imply a stable economic equilibrium or the desired attributes, because even where every participant is adhering to their optimum strategy, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the system is not subject to deleterious effects which are unstable, such as asymmetries in profit which snowball in a power vacuum that eventually causes the Byzantine fault tolerance thresholds to be exceeded resulting in the degradation of desirable attributes.

4.1 Selfish Mining Example

In PoW for example, whether or not coordinated miners with more than ¹/₃ of the systemic hashrate are selfish²³ and/or stubborn³⁴ mining by propagating their new blocks delayed or more slowly to other miners for a relatively more profitable mining strategy, doesn’t dictate or change for the other miners their optimum mining strategy. Due to variance, miners already have an incentive to mine on the largest pool¹⁸ if it doesn't negatively impact market confidence, and even to selfish and/or stubborn mine if adequate hashrate is pooled. As explained below, hashrate attacks on PoW aren’t incentivized if they can’t be kept secret. Selfish mining may be indistinguishable from randomness.

However, the selfish and/or stubborn mining does alter for system participants their optimum calculation of the number of confirmations for a specific probability of a double-spend if the attacker ever has an incentive to double-spend. Even double-spend attacks employing only a minority (less than 50%) of the hashrate do slightly impact optimal confirmation probabilities even without the selfish mining strategy considered¹⁶. These attacks are part of the more general flaw that PoW doesn’t have a Nash equilibrium on finality of consensus because of a myriad of possible secret hashrate threats¹⁷, as discussed in the Byzantine Agreement vs. Proof-of-Work Consensus section.

However, excepting the genre of surprise attacks which don't destroy the value of the perpetrator’s resource investment¹⁷, attacks such as double-spends employing (even minority) hashrate which stoke fear and degrade confidence aren’t plausible as Satoshi argued:¹

If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

The exponential or power-law mining distribution indicates a tiny percentage of the miners control a majority of the systemic hashrate. There isn’t likely enough liquidity from shorting the market to recoup the market value of their hardware (guaranteed to be non-zero because their mining equipment is necessarily generating more income than costs); nor is degrading the value of the system congruent with maximizing mining profit. Rented mining hashrate attacks are mathematically viable, but implausible for mining dominated by specialized, non-repurposabale^* hardware such as SHA-256 ASICs, because the controllers of the majority of the systemic hashrate are disincentivized from renting to those who would attack.³⁵ Whereas for (D)PoS, the stakeholders of exponential or power-law concentration of stake distribution don’t necessarily have any significant asset at risk which has greater liquid value than the liquidity that can be extracted from shorting the market while attacking. However, it is plausible that a scenario might exist for a (D)PoS system where large stakeholders are publicly known to have significant revenue generating business that depend on the confidence in the (D)PoS system, yet these business interests might make them vulnerable to blackmail, such as when Warren Buffet needed various government regulators to approve the licenses for Berkshire Hathaway’s Geico insurance company.

Thus, even though the selfish and/or stubborn mining strategy has a Nash equilibrium both w.r.t. miners and the computation of double-spend probabilities, the selfish and/or stubborn mining strategy is theoretically a power vacuum that returns disproportionately more profit to the perpetrator than his hashrate would otherwise generate; thus if profit is reinvested in mining (and all other factors not in net countervailing) then eventually concentrating coordination of more than 50% of hashrate, enabling 51% attacks. So this is an example where Nash equilibrium in mining w.r.t. to a particular attack, doesn't prevent a deleterious power vacuum due that attack.

However, an attacker can orphan every block mined by the minority when his hashrate exceeds 50%. This also enables the attacker to optionally censor transactions and monopolize (dictate) the minimum level of transaction fees. That the minority shouldn’t mine at all isn’t a Nash equilibrium if the community can’t prove that such an attack is underway, such as if the attacker has many IP addresses with justifiably slow propagation. Yet if the majority of the network is mining on large pools, then it is seems likely the attack would be detectable except that the majority controls the pools without anyone knowing (a Sybil attack). This is elaborated in the sub-section Invisible Majority Hashrate Attacks.

Per the logic of the aforementioned quote of Satoshi, the rational attacker maximizing his opportunity cost for mining rewards (and other value from attacks) would balance the harm done (higher confirmation delay variance,³⁶ censoring, and higher fees) with the market’s acceptance (even appreciation) of the security “benefit” of a benevolent dictator who never allows double-spends, i.e. the majority might even sign their blocks which are never orphaned. Given that public confidence determines the value of currency,³⁷ the attacker must balance the effects on public confidence. Public confidence can be manipulated.⁴

---

* _{Thus to the extent that any proof-of-work puzzle can be “ASIC-resistant” on repurposable hardware, then it is less secure against hashrate attacks.}

[redacted]

References

¹	Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. The Cryptography and Cryptography Policy Mailing List at metzdowd.com, Nov 1, 2008. ↩
²	Daniel Larimer, Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS). Bitsharetalk.org, Apr 3, 2014. Also Bitcointalk. Current synopsis at Bitshares.org. ↩
	[redacted]
⁴	Paul Sztorc. Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work. Truthcoin.info blog, §Money and Politics, Aug 4, 2015.
	[redacted]
¹⁶	Meni Rosenfeld. Analysis of Hashrate-Based Double Spending. Dec 11, 2012. ↩
¹⁷	Serguei Popov. The tangle. §4.3 Resistance to quantum computations, p. 24, Apr 3, 2016. ↩
¹⁸	Meni Rosenfeld. Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems. Dec 21, 2011. ↩
	[redacted]
²³	Ittay Eyal, Emin Gün Sirer. Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable. Nov 1, 2013. ↩
	[redacted]
³⁴	Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, Elaine Shi. Stubborn Mining: Generalizing Selfish Mining and Combining with an Eclipse Attack. IEEE Euro SP 2016, Jan 5, 2016. ↩
³⁵	Shelby Moore III. Rented hashrate attacks are implausible. Bitcointalk.org, “DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)” thread, post #868, Nov 12, 2016. ↩
³⁶	Kenneth Cole via Paul Sztorc. Long Live Proof-of-Work, Long Live Mining. Truthcoin.info blog, Kenneth Cole’s comment, Aug 4, 2015. ↩
³⁷	Shelby Moore III. Value of currency has historically been public confidence in it as a reliable unit-of-exchange. Bitcointalk.org, “Precious metals are not useful in a collapse scenario!” thread, post #62, Nov 2, 2016.

[redacted]

[iamnotback]

@bananos The time has come to close ur 0.006 slong.

Hey. 

[snowflake43]

@iamnotback or @smooth

Why do curation rewards percentage decreases when people upvote a post before the 30 min mark?  Most curation rewards on the platform are below 5% of the total payouts per post...no wonder why there is only bots curating...

[iamnotback]

...except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price...

Note the likely reason for needing to drop the 104 weeks to 13 for power down, is because otherwise the existing SP holders have no way to lower the debasement rate of SP holders quickly by powering down. This is a dilemma.

tl;dr is stand on the sidelines and wait to scoop up very cheap STEEM after the dust settles.

As I have told @smooth in private and I will try to tell @ned and @dan today by linking to this post, they should make the changes to lower the inflation rate to 9.5% for speculators (and all), but they should not lower the power down cycle from 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it is going to crater the price.

The least they can do after the sneaky stealth "premine" is to not allow themselves (whales) to extract more than 1% a week from it. But opening the floodgates to 8% per week, they are raping their own system and burning it to the ground.

Someone please talk some sense into them!

@dan, @ned I strongly urge you to do the change for the inflation but to not lower the power down from 104 to 13 weeks. Otherwise I think you will have a blood bath on your hands. Okay you whales want to dump and then buy back cheap. Thanks for not protecting the value of my STEEM POWER!

[snowflake43]

...except I would not have dropped the 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it could create enormous selling pressure collapsing the price...

Note the likely reason for needing to drop the 104 weeks to 13 for power down, is because otherwise the existing SP holders have no way to lower the debasement rate of SP holders quickly by powering down. This is a dilemma.

tl;dr is stand on the sidelines and wait to scoop up very cheap STEEM after the dust settles.

As I have told @smooth in private and I will try to tell @ned and @dan today by linking to this post, they should make the changes to lower the inflation rate to 9.5% for speculators (and all), but they should not lower the power down cycle from 104 weeks to 13 weeks because it is going to crater the price.

The least they can do after the sneaky stealth "premine" is to not allow themselves (whales) to extract more than 1% a week from it. But opening the floodgates to 8% per week, they are raping their own system and burning it to the ground.

Someone please talk some sense into them!

The whole point of the long power down period was to prevent the hyper inflated steem from being dumped on the market.

Now they will reduce the inflation down a lot and gradually decrease inflation over the years which will make the token scarce so there is really no point to lock people for 2 years. You guys seem worried now that the price is going to crash but when it went from $4 to $0.1 didn't seem worried at all lol the price already crashed, not much room left

[iamnotback]

The whole point of the long power down period was to prevent the hyper inflated steem from being dumped on the market.

Now they will reduce the inflation down a lot and gradually decrease inflation over the years which will make the token scarce so there is really no point to lock people for 2 years. You guys seem worried now that the price is going to crash but when it went from $4 to $0.1 didn't seem worried at all lol

But the prior inflation is going to released all at once on all of us.

You can't simply erase what was already inflated all at once. Too many people holding tokens which they got for nearly free. No investment case. Dumping, dumping, dumping clusterfuckfest coming.

Auroracoin is good example of what will happen.