Someone please make a steem clone

[BitcoinNational]

Something important Steem might attempt to do, or perhaps a clone could do:

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@anonymint/improving-web-browser-security-with-a-steem-like-blockchain

That made it to the (bottom of the) front page. Nice work. Hard to compete with boobs though.

if the bottom is $2500; not bad for a days work

[1714969792]

1714969792

[1714969792]

1714969792

[1714969792]

1714969792

[1714969792]

1714969792

[1714969792]

1714969792

[iamnotback]

Well that post came about because of research I was doing for the coding I was doing. I wasn't planning to blog, it just fell out into my lap. (Edit: and I needed to write that down any way, so better to put the content on a blockchain)

I really needed some money cushion, because I have a negative net worth, no income, and the cash I have isn't even mine and that had fallen to $9000 with roughly ($350+$80+$100+$256+$300+$100+$150+$100+50=) $1586 monthly burn rate not including any gadgets or techie expenses (such as domain registrations, etc). Oh that doesn't exclude the $250 I pay every 6 months to renew tourist visa and soon I will have to fly out of the country to renew so another large expense, etc, etc.

On the positive side I can work full time on this work I am talking about herein (actually double-time as I am exceeding 16 hours daily when my health cooperates).

Btw, thanks smooth and the others who upvoted that. I feel sort of guilty about it since I want to try to compete or improve Steem via competing. But somehow it will workout for the best I presume. After watching today the video of Dan and Ned (linked upthread), they seem like nice guys to me in the video. I got a different impression of Dan in the past from written or audio communication when I can't see his face. (Edit: I think also he was very stressed out with the former Bitshares governance debacle)

Bottom line is it should all work out for the best. Just need to remain productive and try to do work that benefits the ecosystem.

Btw, on further thought I didn't like the 6 letter domain name I had selected, because although everyone liked it, it had the wrong connotation. It was causing people to think of stalking their favorite artists. So I lost another several hours trying to think of a more appropriate name that is also really catchy. I was lucky to think of one which I think is better than Steemit. And it is 6 letters. So that was a nice accomplishment also for today, but I am bit disappointed that I didn't complete my module.js code today. I put two small JS code fragments up on my Github yesterday. Hopefully my coding will accelerate from now.

[AlexGR]

Btw, if you are planning to make a clone, do not ask for names (publicly) or say names out loud for obvious reasons.

[iamnotback]

Btw, if you are planning to make a clone, do not ask for names (publicly) or say names out loud for obvious reasons.

I'd mention the name I have already, but the .com is $3000+ and I don't want to spend that out of my limited cash reserve unless I am very close to launch. I've got the .org, .net, .co, and .us already. After sleeping on the name choice I have finalized on, I am liking it more and more. It is really great because it captures the esteem concept while also being more general and appropriate to upvoting and sharing on all media types, including music, etc..

I moved away from my "jambox" or use of the term "jammin". I do have one alternative name not "fanjam" (which is also quite good! but suffers from the copycat problem) with the term "jam" in it. But I am nearly certain everyone will like my main choice.

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

I guess I will go ahead and share the name I was originally thinking of using but even though it was catchy, I realized quickly that is was entirely the wrong meaning (except perhaps for the music content I am planning to go after later):

fanjam (note the .com is in use but I think not seriously)

Please do not criticize me for that name, as I did not continue with it. I registered the .us for $1 only while I gave myself more time to catch up on other duties (and also because I was having some brain fog due to my illness and put it on back burner until that abated) then returned to it and realized it was not the right meaning even though my gf and others liked it as very catchy and inducing.

Note the Jambox name was originally intended to focus on music sharing and after that apps in general (starting with games). So the "box" was your mobile device. It was all supposed to be in there. But Steem's example is that user created content is lower hanging fruit, so needed to move entirely away from "box" or confined to mobile devices. I still want to go after the music and apps later.

My long range goal is to entirely replace the Android and iOS APIs and app developers will program to a new API which abstracts those. We have these sort of platforms already, but not within an ecosystem which is larger than Android and iOS. I am annoyed at the bastardization of my mobile device by Google and Samsung. Fucking thing updates and installs shit without my permission and basically I am no longer in control of my device! (Yeah I know I heard I need to buy a Nexus or other brand, but I can't find here in Philippines and/or too expensive for me at this time, and besides I like to use mainstream stuff so I can see the problems that need to be solved for the masses)

I am thinking really big. I want to create a new programming language that compiles to JavaScript. Etc.

But we usually crawl before we walk before we sprint.

I am intending to replace the web browser also (unify it with mobile and the concept of an OS). Big dreams but I don't need to get all the way there in order to declare success. I will bite it off in morsels of lowest hanging fruit first. And have to observe my health also (which has been getting sometimes very good and very encouraging).

I (the goals) need capital to fund and motivate those big plans. Not just monetary capital but also the network effects capital of ideas and ecosystems. And I hope to get the capital I need from doing this first stage which is to compete with Steem. Or will see if that ends up causing myself and/or my goals to become folded into the Steem ecosystem instead.

[iamnotback]

Why I stopped powering down my STEEM Power

Given the support I've received here and the fact I no longer have looming financial concerns I can now begin to save up to pay off my debts and start saving up for my first home. One thing that donned on me was that STEEM has a built in Savings account. Initially I was powering down to earn that little extra each week to help offset my expenses. I won't be powering down my account any time soon, Firstly because I no longer need to.. And secondly to show my support for STEEM, Steemit.com and the awesome developers that made it possible.

I'm holding onto my STEEM Power, as a show of my support for the future of the network!

That is a key realization about the concept which is also paramount in the way I was already thinking of restructuring Steem's design.

And it also pertains to my logic on why I think that Steem dollars are unnecessary. Note I am not intending to design a system to bailout people quickly from their messed up lives (as this guy will eventually find out that Steem's large easy payouts are not sustainable and so I hope he has stabilized his life asap). That is not to say I don't appreciate being bailed out of my cash flow problem by Steem, rather that it is not in the best interests of a correctly designed system IMO. This bleeding heart change-a-life works for Steem as a first noble driver of interest (and I have nothing against charity when individuals are tipping from their own wallets, not a collectivized one[1]), but it is not a good model for sustainably onboarding the masses. That is not to say there wouldn't also be instances in the design I am contemplating, but they wouldn't be as easy to attain (lotto-ish). In my design, the serious money goes to the serious content producers. The moderate rewards go to the average users who must keep it invested to see it grow into something very valuable:

Edit: but without the quadratic voting rewards, it is arguable that Steem would lose some (most?) of the hype and promotion. This is one of the reasons why I incorporated another reward into my design.

[1] Some of you may remember I distributed $5000+ in charity provided by vokain and rpietila (mostly vokain) to victims of typhoon Yolanda and specifically documented with photos several examples of the new roofs that were constructed. Some where I still have all the Palawan Padala receipts documenting that.

[AlexGR]

VESTs are increasing so fast that you can power down and increase your VESTs at the same time. As jl777 put it: have your cake and eat it too.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@jl777/how-to-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to-or-how-you-can-have-your-sp-increase-even-while-you-are-powering-down

[robdark]

Well decent is a little like steam..

[iamnotback]

On security of crypto-currency transactions:

@dan, in essence your proposal could be that I have a multi-sig on my transfers and if there is any double-spend within 30 days of any transfer, then the multi-sig is the tie breaker. I can update the multi-sig at any time, and of course nothing I sign becomes final until 30 days or there is a multi-sig  (including the entire tree chain) which every is earliest. The details of what the multi-sig parties verify is orthogonal, except that you also propose a multi-sig can be a tree (chain) of multi-sigs.

The tradeoff of course is that transfers are double-spendable for 30 days, which kills your plans for an instant transfer merchant ecosystem. The solution to that is to have separate smaller balance which is transferrable immediately and can't be recovered. This is funded with a 30 day delay (or accelerated by multi-sig, but turtles all the way up the tree chain of multi-sigs) from the main balance which remains protected by this proposal. I am giving away to you one of my design points of the system I was designing before Steem was announced. Any way, it is an obvious point that you would have eventually arrived at.

Btw, I think this needs to go in another blog post, because I don't think laymen (and the world outside of Steem's current readership) yet understand that the main problem(s) of crypto-currency security/theft have been conceptually solved (including my DEX design in that to stop the theft from centralized exchanges).

[iamnotback]

The big picture:

• Decentralized security authority.
• Decentralized content authority of all forms including apps.
• Decentralized authority in general (trustless, no one has systemic control).

[iamnotback]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

[generalizethis]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

Wait, so you're trying to discourage groupthink with a level of agreement/disagreement button--some things we're better off not knowing why--the imagination sometimes gets jolted by its unknowingness.

[iamnotback]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

Wait, so you're trying to discourage groupthink with a level of agreement/disagreement button--some things we're better off not knowing why--the imagination sometimes gets jolted by its unknowingness.

People want to express their reaction to content. If we conflate their opinion of agreement with the relevance of the content for their attention, then we don't have an attention relevance metric rather some Frankenstein. I may disagree with a blog post and be compelled to express it with a quick click, but it may not mean I want to hide that content from my future attention. Without an accurate relevance algorithm, we will encourage groupthink, because attention (i.e. ranking) drives votes and rewards.

[laugh2btc]

Newbium is really great!

[generalizethis]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

Wait, so you're trying to discourage groupthink with a level of agreement/disagreement button--some things we're better off not knowing why--the imagination sometimes gets jolted by its unknowingness.

People want to express their reaction to content. If we conflate their opinion of agreement with the relevance of the content for their attention, then we don't have an attention relevance metric rather some Frankenstein. I may disagree with a blog post and be compelled to express it with a quick click, but it may not mean I want to hide that content from my future attention. Without an accurate relevance algorithm, we will encourage groupthink, because attention (i.e. ranking) drives votes and rewards.

Pollsters would agree and that's why we get groupthink politics--not that there's anything wrong with it--just that enough metrics gets you one size fits all products.

[paratox]

The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

Reading this I thought there may be a word that could represent this functionality better than "upvote"

What do you think about using the word "magnetize"?

[generalizethis]

The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

Reading this I thought there may be a word that could represent this functionality better than "upvote"

What do you think about using the word "magnetize"?

I was thinking a volume button where you could adjust your tip (because what guy hasn't ever felt the urge to make it rain at the "scrip club"?). Though I think this goes hand in hand with a funded wallet.

Pacman Jones + scrip club = a 2-3 year bit on Jim Rome--can't imagine the curation miles that guy would rack up.

[smooth]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

I don't think every post needs that, but a poll feature could be useful in making interesting posts.

[iamnotback]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

I don't think every post needs that, but a poll feature could be useful in making interesting posts.

I wasn't proposing a poll for its feature value (although that is another perhaps useful feature), but rather as a release valve for those who will otherwise "abuse" the upvoting to reflect their agreement or disagreement, rather than using upvoting exclusively for expressing relevance of what they want to be see highly ranked for their own eyes ongoing. Disagreement isn't always "I don't want to see this genre of content in the future". See the problem is the two meanings of voting are currently conflated. I am still contemplating how to best handle relevance and voting. Not confident that a poll as a release valve is the optimum solution.

Edit: I thought about using time spent on a page as a metric of relevance and leave the upvoting for agreement+tipping (eliminating the downvoting), but time spent on a page is variable due to varying length and complexity of the content.

[smooth]

Btw, I am contemplating entirely eliminating downvoting.

As well, upvoting needs to be different than liking the argument of a blog post:

Please don't downvote my reputation just because you disagree with my opinion. That is what the Reply button is for.

I think thinking every post needs a poll (e.g. Agree/Disagree) in addition to an upvoting button for relevance. The upvoting button should be "I want to read more content of this quality, topic, and readership coterie".

I don't think every post needs that, but a poll feature could be useful in making interesting posts.

I wasn't proposing a poll for its feature value (although that is another perhaps useful feature), but rather as a release valve for those who will otherwise "abuse" the upvoting to reflect their agreement or disagreement, rather than using upvoting exclusively for expressing relevance of what they want to be see highly ranked for their own eyes ongoing. Disagreement isn't always "I don't want to see this genre of content in the future". See the problem is the two meanings of voting are currently conflated. I am still contemplating how to best handle relevance and voting. Not confident that a poll as a release valve is the optimum solution.

Voting in Steem does not express personal relevance. Prior to the recommended feature being removed, it could be interpreted as having in part that effect, but it no longer does, and that is certainly not its essential function.

Voting in Steem is more like tipping or crowdfunding, with a social component that increases rewards if more people approve.

For example, I'm not a fan of the Dollar Vigilante and I don't really care whether I see more of his stuff or not, I don't even know whether I agree with him on most things or not, but I voted for his posts because I think funding him adds value.

Maybe the upvote button should be replaced with a dollar sign/coin icon.

The question of personal relevance and own eyes is interesting, because I might very well want to see content that I think is crap so I can downvote it. In fact I'm more interested in seeing that than content I'm neutral about.

[iamnotback]

Voting in Steem does not express personal relevance....

Voting in Steem is more like tipping or crowdfunding...

Agreed, see also I was thinking similarly per my edit of my prior post while you were composing your reply.

Steem's current relevance filters are:

* tags
* active, trending, hot, new
* and soon follows

...but I voted for his posts because I think funding him adds value.

The question of personal relevance and own eyes is interesting, because I might very well want to see content that I think is crap so I can downvote it. In fact I'm more interested in seeing that than content I'm neutral about.

The value question is very important to study.

Does your (or a groupthink's) judgement of value add the most value to Steem? I argue no. Because I posit a groupthink can perpetuate the singular demographics that can prevent Steem from crossing the chasm to mainstream diversity of demographics.

Rather I think the greatest value comes from the most users engaging in investing their time and effort in the site. For this you may need a proliferation of smaller coteries which are implausibly numerous for the groupthink to recognize. It is surely beyond Dunbar number upper bound of the cognitive load a human can handle in social networks.

So that is why it may not be wise to consider value and relevance orthogonally.

Maybe the upvote button should be replaced with a dollar sign/coin icon.

It depends on the what an upvote is supposed to mean and is actually doing. As it stands now, it is both a relevance and value judgement feature. But it has problems.

One example could argue that people want to view the upvote as an expression of something, not as an insignificant (insulting level) of monetary tip. The quadratic weighting can make each vote more monetarily significant when combined into a groupthink. But the groupthink has negative downsides/tradeoffs.

I am just questioning the entire model of any value coming from people who think they know what other people will want to read. Wouldn't it be better if we all just voted on what we want to read and then let some algorithm decide via like-mindedness which posts should get the attention of each user. There is no way you can determine whether your judgement are relevant for others  and which others without statistical correlation.