I can see some difficulties with tracking the pre-mined VESTS, and removing them from recipient accounts, I can't quite imagine the algorithm yet, though I have some ideas. I guess in your view, these accounts are in receipt of stolen goods, and need to return them to the pool, but I'm not sure how this affects balances across the board. Also, having the pre-mined VESTS added to the initial rewards pool is an interesting idea, but if done, the distribution time-frame needs to be extended over around six months in my view, and so the out-flow carefully calibrated. Once you know the balance of these pre-mined VESTS, you'd have a better idea of what to do with them. Would excluding them altogether not be more prudent from the perspective of the SEC (if there's an issue there), or does this lead to some accounting problem I'm missing? I'd like to know the percentage of this pre-mine.
Good change I think, but I don't really understand the purpose of SBD, there may be a reason I don't know.
Great change.
Great change.
Not sure about this, it's a bit confusing. If the voting formula changes once elected, couldn't it cause unstable witness selection (disequilibrium), where elected witnesses would oscillate each time it is recalculated?
Not sure about this. If you're meaning a comment based referendum, there would need to be some alterations to prevent such discussion from being distorted/dominated by the early responders. Also, who would run this, and how would even the wording be decided?
Great change. Perhaps in the short-term, a ledger only mode for the steemd RPC nodes, as that is all the exchanges need.
Complicated one, I'd need to think/read more about it. I don't even currently know how reputations are calculated.
I can see Steem Inc. doing (7) when forced to by the lack of willing RPC node participants, but currently @gtg thinks it can be probably be run with an Amazon EC2 i3.2xlarge 61GB RAM ($313/month). If true, the requirements don't seem to be huge as yet, though obviously this architecture won't scale to Facebook size! @netuoso who has just set up a new RPC node due to recent outages, says full RPC nodes are currently using 70GB+, but as we know this is growing fast. An Amazon EC2 i3.4xlarge has 122GB, costs $625/month, and would probably cope for a few more months I guess. In my mind, one issue is that there's no reward for handling RPC requests (like there is for making blocks). It would probably require too much overhead to do so though.
I am currently on the fence about your fork, but depending on how Steemit handles ongoing structural problems and communication in the next couple of months, and if they don't implement (3), (4) and (7), it could gain traction I think.
If there is a genuine threat from regulators, then I can see how (1) might help, and how it would be popular, and rejuvenate the platform. I just can't quite bring myself, to conclude that the pre-mining was morally wrong though, even though the regulators and many people may disagree.
"I'd like to know the percentage of this pre-mine." - To my understanding we're talking about of very big percentages here. For a first few days only select few were mining as the Steemit Inc didn't release any info on how to do it. So select few got majority of the stake for being in the inside, and to add to that, the inflation was 100% or something similarly crazy after that. So these people kept gaining crazy number of Steem for doing literally nothing for a long time. Dan for example, was gaining couple steem every second or so. And this is the problem with Steem.
I think you can find more information about the whole fiasco start from bitcointalk forums.
Who knows what they were thinking but proper and fair distribution had no part in it. Maybe they were only going for short term profits. I just read that the Steem blockchain has grown 50% in size in the last 6 weeks. That can't last very long.
I'm glad you find the project interesting. I started working on it before I even knew of Steemit and it's a "learn by doing" -kind of a thing. The search is not working currently as I don't have "testing sandbox" and make changes directly to the live version and these changes are still somewhat underway. Clicking on tags however does work to some extent at least.
Yeah, how many GB is it now? I'm thinking the problem is in the RPC nodes index to the blockchain, this seems to be unstable unless it's in RAM (as @elfspice says), but does work to some extent using very fast swap with SSDs in RAID 1. I get the feeling it's not too hard to solve though to be honest, but I'm still learning about the infrastructure, and the information is hard to collate.
I've been considering working with Steem Connect soon too, I would have to convince myself the platform has a future, before I put more time into it!
From elfspice - "about 50% growth in under 6 weeks since I last saw the chain was 14gb, it is now 22gb"
I'm not that technical that I could provide any input on this issues. They however do make me worried since I care about the decentralization part in a big way.
My little project doesn't really need Steem, it posts all data to its own database and to Steem so it's fine even if it implodes. Sad, but fine.
Fully withdrawing the pre-mined SP will probably leave some accounts with negative balances though. If they are only be depleted to zero (or a minimum functional SP), then you haven't fully dealt with the the pre-mining issue as far as possible regulator intervention goes. I guess you may be able to add some amount to all balances to reach zero?
I like this kind of idea, it's just the specifics need to work smoothly.
That makes sense.
I understand the basis of your fork is moral, and respect that.
I'd be interested in what you've done on proof of service and spam identification.
It sounds clever. I still haven't quiet got my head around the architectures/flows of these decentralised cryptographic systems. It's quite a leap from the data analysis work I usually do!
I feel like I need to read some books or watch some tutorials/lectures on it to be honest. Any suggestions?
I see what you're saying about the models corresponding to legal processes though - good point. I probably need to familiarise myself with some cryptocurrency systems source code too when I've time.
I strongly support many of these changes. Particularly, if the SEC decides to come after Steem because of the premining issue, Calibrae may well prove immune, because of the changes you intend.
I would, however, not disburse all those vests right off. There has been some fluctuation in rewards due to HF19, and how the pool was drained quickly. I reckon maintaining more of a pool could moderate fluctuations, and people would find that easier to count on.
I was raised in Alaska, and royalties on the oil industry were accumulated in a permanent fund. The interest generated from this fund not only made it possible for Alaska to not tax it's citizens, it actually paid them by disbursing interest accrued on the account that was not required by state government.
When I was a kid, Alaska paid us ~$1,000/year, just for being an Alaskan.
Give this some thought. It's possible that keeping a healthy vest fund, rather than simply expending that fund quickly, may be something beneficial to the platform, and the community.
I also like the idea of one issue per HF. HF19 was difficult to parse, because it did two diametrically opposed things. Did selfvoting dramatically increase because minnow votes were worth more, or because there were far fewer votes being cast?
While I reckon the latter more convincing, I've seen no data that proves either supposition. One issue per HF would make it much easier to understand the difference between what was expected to happen, and what did happen, as a result of the change.
Have you considered removing the weighting of VP by SP, and thus removing the currency from the SEC's jurisdiction? I have posted and commented profusely on other problems that arise from this 'feature' of Steemit.
However, getting the SEC off our backs is pretty damn compelling.
Thanks for your hard work and careful thought that has gone into this post!
I only commented sparely, because I am all too given to bloviation =p
I do like very much that you intend to mitigate stake with rep. I reckon it's a great step forward, as rep is community vetting (which will matter much more when bots are incapable of influencing it).
I am not a coder, and much of the guts of the system you are making are above my pay grade. I am also mentally incapable of parsing further the rep/stake weighting of VP, at least until I see a particular implementation.
I'll look forward to further development. I am greatly interested!
Your changes seem sensible, but I'd need to know more about the original intent to be sure.
I'd also take a look at what changes the Russian fork has done (Golos?). AFAIK they have two payouts, one after 24 hrs, and one after 30 days, which makes total sense to me as most earning is usually done before 24 hrs anyway, but 7 days is far too short to be able to discover valuable stuff. Ideally I think it should be possible to earn for longer also.
Another thing to consider is built-in language support. If different languages had been properly supported the Russian fork might have been avoided.
Thanks, you've obviously thought about these things. I agree that 30 days is too long default for payout, but that you stop earning money after 7 days is too short in my opinion. Would therefore be interesting to know how it works for Golos. To renew, is an interesting idea, I've thought that perhaps the author could choose length himself, but then he'll also control time for the curation...
BTW: Take a look at @theluke's OpenSteem if you haven't, should be relevant.
@elfspice I like the honorable discussion you are posting and sharing.
I support improving and advancing the steem blockchain and the social media experiment.
I've said this a few times, steemit being first doesn't mean it will survive or remain in first place should a competitor enter with structurally focused content creation support.
Now, I am becoming aware of so many more controversial issues that need to be addressed too.
If more posts and resteems go forward this will be more likely to get the attention of executives. That is my wish. The next hard fork is already shaping up for great controversy - thanks again!
@elfspice I wish you well wherever you go, meanwhile I look forward to your posts with truth bombs and data dumps.
There are other social media platforms coming to a blockchain, I hope they will be more transparent and structurally focused on the ease of quality content creation.
Will you be looking into the other blockchain devs?
@elfspice I thought the blockchain tech with supercomputers was superior to Torrents but I actually like Torrents and your comment gives me hope it will survive with other peer technologies. BitChute is another hopeful sign.
But back to the subject here, I used the steemit search tool for monthly quorums and didn't find a location.
If you can, please provide info on the quorums - like when and the url.
With the Calibrae fork, what more can we minnows do to assist?
@elfspice Ha-ha I've been trailing the hummingbird posts and I hope our reposts and upvotes help you.
The idea to remove bad bots is a awesome feature - I was told it was impossible because accounts are permanent.
The hard fork becomes more appealing each time I read the details in the threads - so yes a dedicated post that lays it all all out for a permanent discussion room that allows us to note new comments as they are made or new upvotes - though the upvote feature is lost after a week so that won't work...
Maybe you would support a team- community effort to weekly update the old post that lays it all out and keep a tally of votes on the open issues.
I see the benefit of comments and voting to show what the community wants - but again the weight to votes skews that idea to shreds as a whale vote or downvote wrecks havoc
I don't know - maybe a chatroom would be better rather than steemit?
I'm just thinking out loud - you are too busy to get bogged down with this.
Do what needs to be done and ask the community to assist you when you need it - until then, cheers m8!
Theyll be caled a Calibrator! and hey man i am scared, i posted a steemit poost about how a steemit user came over to my house and gifted me a ledger nano S ! and i went on to show how i posted a CRAIGHLSIt ad for steemit! but my ppst only got 30 cents and my posst NEVER do that theyre all always like at $10 immeidtaly after iu post sosiopmethinsg wrong :( maybe my followers all powered down? I notcie ur up to 100 k ,an, can u plz help me out with my latst post. I just upvoted all ur recent commenst!
hey man 5 days was ur last one, where u ben?
we need u back hre full time!
I did see that conversation, and it is largely why I find the recent denial that there was any premining to be incorrect.
I recall linking you to a source on the initial formation of Steem(it), and that included a reset which wiped out competing mining interests, while leaving that particular party's mining efforts intact.
Due to the fact that Steem became publicly traded, I reckon that's not a good and lawful position to be in, should the SEC decide to concern themselves about it.
I just want the good features of Steemit to no longer be held back by financial shenanigans. I hope you can pull it off!
Initial vests should be started from some initial amount, suppose 1, like a new account on Steemit.
Otherwise the accumulative effects of votes by premind accounts remain.
Being one of the earliest users is a big enough advantage.
There should be no snapshot of existing accounts and posts.
Rewarding of posts must not be limited by time.
This is dailymotion's and youtube's biggest advantage over Steemit in terms of financial rewards and fairness.
The currency should have a fixed amount, but this may be the biggest problem to implement and require the most fundamental changes.
Powering down should be immediate, to give people control over their property.
Like in Steemit, the initial free voting power must not be for sale, and this way an account is guaranteed to always have a positive voting power, and people do not get free currency just by joining.
Multiple accounts are not a lesser problem than premined accounts and self voting.
Self voting by a different account of the same user is not any worse than self voting of 1 account.
By this answer I concur that the worst of Steemit and STEEM's flaws are expected to remain in calibrae.
If an account got upvotes from a preminer, one of its proxies or one of its recursive benefactors, the effects of premining stay in tact in your platform.
If you charge people to join, you kill your platform before it is born.
Growing your community will be nearly impossible if you kept it free as in Steemit.
I could not find where you replied about Steemit's and calibr.ae's reward system having timeout on rewards, as opposed to dailymotion's and youtube's.
Why should a potential owner of a stake care about margin trading so much that he will agree to freeze his own's control over his stake?
I did not claim calibr.ae should reward posts upon viewing, nor does youtube works this way, and about dailymotion IDK enough regarding this aspect.
Youtube rewards upon ad viewed for longer than 15 seconds.
An upvote based system should rewards upon upvotes, which is fine, but there should be no time limit on rewarding upvotes.
This is what I meant before.
Regarding your joining stipulations, I failed to comprehend them.
Regarding what a substantial amount of rewards from a preminer, I disagree, since by doing so you both complicate matters and retain some of the problem you seem to be obsessed about.
Regarding margin, you do not convince me, since I do not believe that comfortability for margin traders should be a matter of highest regard when designing a currency system.
Youtube pays upon # of ads viewed for more than 15 secs, not on immediate views of the content itself.
Where is the contradiction?
So is youtube wrong when an uploader of an ATG video keeps ripping the rewards of his great work?
Limiting to 7 days and even 2 months incentives the spirit of spam that ruined Steemit and tsu.co.
There must be no time limit on rewards.
Choosing votes over the youtube criteria might still be fine, but must not be limited with time.
Youtube is a means of passive income while Steemit is a means of frequent creation of spam.
Obviously there is spam content on youtube and quality content on Steemit, but their corresponding part out of the wholes differ because of the difference in the rewarding systems.
Youtube will keep beating Steemit and everything similar to steemit or tsu because of it.
Your proposals are farther from abuse prevention than mine are, and I never claimed that my proposals are perfect against abuse, just better than Steemit and your proposals which are too similar to Steemit in most of its faults and even add a new fault or 2 and then some complication.
Not sure how the removal of pre-mining related accounts will remain objective, but I trust you'll publish the algorithm. I like the idea of preventing the receipt of delegation until an SP threshold is reached.
I really think you're providing a very valuable service whichever way it goes. Even if your progress only goads them into taking the appropriate steps for addressing the long-term good of the platform it will beneficial, and your work possibly of historical significance.
I just thought, when you can, it would be interesting to see what the distribution would look like after removal of the pre-mine accounts you propose.
I've always found this graphic to be a bit depressing, and wondered how much it would change.
Right that many? If you are pushing ahead with this, you'd get the support of the wealthiest non-pre-miners I presume, as they'd become the new (albeit weaker) oligarchy?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think the biggest problem with the reputation scores is how self-voting raises them. Take away self-voting, and it's less of an issue.
You already rejected most of it, but acted as if you agree with other parts of it, praising a moderated, centralized platform for being what it is.
If you want calibrae to be better than steemit, this is what you should do.
To win you need to accept my solution.
I can see Steem Inc. doing (7) when forced to by the lack of willing RPC node participants, but currently @gtg thinks it can be probably be run with an Amazon EC2 i3.2xlarge 61GB RAM ($313/month). If true, the requirements don't seem to be huge as yet, though obviously this architecture won't scale to Facebook size! @netuoso who has just set up a new RPC node due to recent outages, says full RPC nodes are currently using 70GB+, but as we know this is growing fast. An Amazon EC2 i3.4xlarge has 122GB, costs $625/month, and would probably cope for a few more months I guess. In my mind, one issue is that there's no reward for handling RPC requests (like there is for making blocks). It would probably require too much overhead to do so though.
I am currently on the fence about your fork, but depending on how Steemit handles ongoing structural problems and communication in the next couple of months, and if they don't implement (3), (4) and (7), it could gain traction I think.
If there is a genuine threat from regulators, then I can see how (1) might help, and how it would be popular, and rejuvenate the platform. I just can't quite bring myself, to conclude that the pre-mining was morally wrong though, even though the regulators and many people may disagree.
Very interesting!
"I'd like to know the percentage of this pre-mine." - To my understanding we're talking about of very big percentages here. For a first few days only select few were mining as the Steemit Inc didn't release any info on how to do it. So select few got majority of the stake for being in the inside, and to add to that, the inflation was 100% or something similarly crazy after that. So these people kept gaining crazy number of Steem for doing literally nothing for a long time. Dan for example, was gaining couple steem every second or so. And this is the problem with Steem.
I think you can find more information about the whole fiasco start from bitcointalk forums.
Thanks for that. I'll have a look at that when I've some more time.
The strange thing is, I bet some of them regret that the process happened in quite that way, but are trapped by it now.
I saw your www.folderall.net project, it looks interesting, but the search doesn't seem to work at the moment... is that right?
Who knows what they were thinking but proper and fair distribution had no part in it. Maybe they were only going for short term profits. I just read that the Steem blockchain has grown 50% in size in the last 6 weeks. That can't last very long.
I'm glad you find the project interesting. I started working on it before I even knew of Steemit and it's a "learn by doing" -kind of a thing. The search is not working currently as I don't have "testing sandbox" and make changes directly to the live version and these changes are still somewhat underway. Clicking on tags however does work to some extent at least.
Yeah, how many GB is it now? I'm thinking the problem is in the RPC nodes index to the blockchain, this seems to be unstable unless it's in RAM (as @elfspice says), but does work to some extent using very fast swap with SSDs in RAID 1. I get the feeling it's not too hard to solve though to be honest, but I'm still learning about the infrastructure, and the information is hard to collate.
I've been considering working with Steem Connect soon too, I would have to convince myself the platform has a future, before I put more time into it!
From elfspice - "about 50% growth in under 6 weeks since I last saw the chain was 14gb, it is now 22gb"
I'm not that technical that I could provide any input on this issues. They however do make me worried since I care about the decentralization part in a big way.
My little project doesn't really need Steem, it posts all data to its own database and to Steem so it's fine even if it implodes. Sad, but fine.
I've seen his post now... it is pretty crazy!
I understand the basis of your fork is moral, and respect that.
I'd be interested in what you've done on proof of service and spam identification.
It sounds clever. I still haven't quiet got my head around the architectures/flows of these decentralised cryptographic systems. It's quite a leap from the data analysis work I usually do!
I feel like I need to read some books or watch some tutorials/lectures on it to be honest. Any suggestions?
Well, you, and a few other very smart people ;)
I see what you're saying about the models corresponding to legal processes though - good point. I probably need to familiarise myself with some cryptocurrency systems source code too when I've time.
I strongly support many of these changes. Particularly, if the SEC decides to come after Steem because of the premining issue, Calibrae may well prove immune, because of the changes you intend.
I would, however, not disburse all those vests right off. There has been some fluctuation in rewards due to HF19, and how the pool was drained quickly. I reckon maintaining more of a pool could moderate fluctuations, and people would find that easier to count on.
I was raised in Alaska, and royalties on the oil industry were accumulated in a permanent fund. The interest generated from this fund not only made it possible for Alaska to not tax it's citizens, it actually paid them by disbursing interest accrued on the account that was not required by state government.
When I was a kid, Alaska paid us ~$1,000/year, just for being an Alaskan.
Give this some thought. It's possible that keeping a healthy vest fund, rather than simply expending that fund quickly, may be something beneficial to the platform, and the community.
I also like the idea of one issue per HF. HF19 was difficult to parse, because it did two diametrically opposed things. Did selfvoting dramatically increase because minnow votes were worth more, or because there were far fewer votes being cast?
While I reckon the latter more convincing, I've seen no data that proves either supposition. One issue per HF would make it much easier to understand the difference between what was expected to happen, and what did happen, as a result of the change.
Have you considered removing the weighting of VP by SP, and thus removing the currency from the SEC's jurisdiction? I have posted and commented profusely on other problems that arise from this 'feature' of Steemit.
However, getting the SEC off our backs is pretty damn compelling.
Thanks for your hard work and careful thought that has gone into this post!
I only commented sparely, because I am all too given to bloviation =p
I do like very much that you intend to mitigate stake with rep. I reckon it's a great step forward, as rep is community vetting (which will matter much more when bots are incapable of influencing it).
I am not a coder, and much of the guts of the system you are making are above my pay grade. I am also mentally incapable of parsing further the rep/stake weighting of VP, at least until I see a particular implementation.
I'll look forward to further development. I am greatly interested!
Your changes seem sensible, but I'd need to know more about the original intent to be sure.
I'd also take a look at what changes the Russian fork has done (Golos?). AFAIK they have two payouts, one after 24 hrs, and one after 30 days, which makes total sense to me as most earning is usually done before 24 hrs anyway, but 7 days is far too short to be able to discover valuable stuff. Ideally I think it should be possible to earn for longer also.
Another thing to consider is built-in language support. If different languages had been properly supported the Russian fork might have been avoided.
Thanks, you've obviously thought about these things. I agree that 30 days is too long default for payout, but that you stop earning money after 7 days is too short in my opinion. Would therefore be interesting to know how it works for Golos. To renew, is an interesting idea, I've thought that perhaps the author could choose length himself, but then he'll also control time for the curation...
BTW: Take a look at @theluke's OpenSteem if you haven't, should be relevant.
@elfspice I like the honorable discussion you are posting and sharing.
I support improving and advancing the steem blockchain and the social media experiment.
I've said this a few times, steemit being first doesn't mean it will survive or remain in first place should a competitor enter with structurally focused content creation support.
Anyway, I observed a few problems and posted my observations about steemit in this open letter last month:
Open Letter To Steem and EOS Programmers and Application developers
Now, I am becoming aware of so many more controversial issues that need to be addressed too.
If more posts and resteems go forward this will be more likely to get the attention of executives. That is my wish. The next hard fork is already shaping up for great controversy - thanks again!
@elfspice I wish you well wherever you go, meanwhile I look forward to your posts with truth bombs and data dumps.
There are other social media platforms coming to a blockchain, I hope they will be more transparent and structurally focused on the ease of quality content creation.
Will you be looking into the other blockchain devs?
@elfspice I thought the blockchain tech with supercomputers was superior to Torrents but I actually like Torrents and your comment gives me hope it will survive with other peer technologies. BitChute is another hopeful sign.
But back to the subject here, I used the steemit search tool for monthly quorums and didn't find a location.
If you can, please provide info on the quorums - like when and the url.
With the Calibrae fork, what more can we minnows do to assist?
@elfspice Ha-ha I've been trailing the hummingbird posts and I hope our reposts and upvotes help you.
The idea to remove bad bots is a awesome feature - I was told it was impossible because accounts are permanent.
The hard fork becomes more appealing each time I read the details in the threads - so yes a dedicated post that lays it all all out for a permanent discussion room that allows us to note new comments as they are made or new upvotes - though the upvote feature is lost after a week so that won't work...
Maybe you would support a team- community effort to weekly update the old post that lays it all out and keep a tally of votes on the open issues.
I see the benefit of comments and voting to show what the community wants - but again the weight to votes skews that idea to shreds as a whale vote or downvote wrecks havoc
I don't know - maybe a chatroom would be better rather than steemit?
I'm just thinking out loud - you are too busy to get bogged down with this.
Do what needs to be done and ask the community to assist you when you need it - until then, cheers m8!
I don't have a problem with any of the 7 at first glance. I'll come back and see what others may be discussing, and take that into account.
What do you call a user? Calibraen? Gotta get the t-shirts printed.
Theyll be caled a Calibrator! and hey man i am scared, i posted a steemit poost about how a steemit user came over to my house and gifted me a ledger nano S ! and i went on to show how i posted a CRAIGHLSIt ad for steemit! but my ppst only got 30 cents and my posst NEVER do that theyre all always like at $10 immeidtaly after iu post sosiopmethinsg wrong :( maybe my followers all powered down? I notcie ur up to 100 k ,an, can u plz help me out with my latst post. I just upvoted all ur recent commenst!
hey man 5 days was ur last one, where u ben?
we need u back hre full time!
I noted that @berniesanders commented on @dwinblood's post about investigating flagging that there was no premining.
I don't agree, and wonder if denial may figure into some of the reason for that comment.
Just thought I'd mention it to you, as you may have relevant comment.
I did see that conversation, and it is largely why I find the recent denial that there was any premining to be incorrect.
I recall linking you to a source on the initial formation of Steem(it), and that included a reset which wiped out competing mining interests, while leaving that particular party's mining efforts intact.
Due to the fact that Steem became publicly traded, I reckon that's not a good and lawful position to be in, should the SEC decide to concern themselves about it.
I just want the good features of Steemit to no longer be held back by financial shenanigans. I hope you can pull it off!
Initial vests should be started from some initial amount, suppose 1, like a new account on Steemit.
Otherwise the accumulative effects of votes by premind accounts remain.
Being one of the earliest users is a big enough advantage.
There should be no snapshot of existing accounts and posts.
Rewarding of posts must not be limited by time.
This is dailymotion's and youtube's biggest advantage over Steemit in terms of financial rewards and fairness.
The currency should have a fixed amount, but this may be the biggest problem to implement and require the most fundamental changes.
Powering down should be immediate, to give people control over their property.
Like in Steemit, the initial free voting power must not be for sale, and this way an account is guaranteed to always have a positive voting power, and people do not get free currency just by joining.
Multiple accounts are not a lesser problem than premined accounts and self voting.
Self voting by a different account of the same user is not any worse than self voting of 1 account.
By this answer I concur that the worst of Steemit and STEEM's flaws are expected to remain in calibrae.
If an account got upvotes from a preminer, one of its proxies or one of its recursive benefactors, the effects of premining stay in tact in your platform.
If you charge people to join, you kill your platform before it is born.
Growing your community will be nearly impossible if you kept it free as in Steemit.
I could not find where you replied about Steemit's and calibr.ae's reward system having timeout on rewards, as opposed to dailymotion's and youtube's.
Why should a potential owner of a stake care about margin trading so much that he will agree to freeze his own's control over his stake?
I did not claim calibr.ae should reward posts upon viewing, nor does youtube works this way, and about dailymotion IDK enough regarding this aspect.
Youtube rewards upon ad viewed for longer than 15 seconds.
An upvote based system should rewards upon upvotes, which is fine, but there should be no time limit on rewarding upvotes.
This is what I meant before.
Regarding your joining stipulations, I failed to comprehend them.
Regarding what a substantial amount of rewards from a preminer, I disagree, since by doing so you both complicate matters and retain some of the problem you seem to be obsessed about.
Regarding margin, you do not convince me, since I do not believe that comfortability for margin traders should be a matter of highest regard when designing a currency system.
Youtube pays upon # of ads viewed for more than 15 secs, not on immediate views of the content itself.
Where is the contradiction?
So is youtube wrong when an uploader of an ATG video keeps ripping the rewards of his great work?
Limiting to 7 days and even 2 months incentives the spirit of spam that ruined Steemit and tsu.co.
There must be no time limit on rewards.
Choosing votes over the youtube criteria might still be fine, but must not be limited with time.
Youtube is a means of passive income while Steemit is a means of frequent creation of spam.
Obviously there is spam content on youtube and quality content on Steemit, but their corresponding part out of the wholes differ because of the difference in the rewarding systems.
Youtube will keep beating Steemit and everything similar to steemit or tsu because of it.
Your proposals are farther from abuse prevention than mine are, and I never claimed that my proposals are perfect against abuse, just better than Steemit and your proposals which are too similar to Steemit in most of its faults and even add a new fault or 2 and then some complication.
Not sure how the removal of pre-mining related accounts will remain objective, but I trust you'll publish the algorithm. I like the idea of preventing the receipt of delegation until an SP threshold is reached.
I really think you're providing a very valuable service whichever way it goes. Even if your progress only goads them into taking the appropriate steps for addressing the long-term good of the platform it will beneficial, and your work possibly of historical significance.
I just thought, when you can, it would be interesting to see what the distribution would look like after removal of the pre-mine accounts you propose.
I've always found this graphic to be a bit depressing, and wondered how much it would change.
Right that many? If you are pushing ahead with this, you'd get the support of the wealthiest non-pre-miners I presume, as they'd become the new (albeit weaker) oligarchy?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think the biggest problem with the reputation scores is how self-voting raises them. Take away self-voting, and it's less of an issue.
There you go, my latest edition:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@stimialiti/to-dan-ned-the-witnesses-and-to-everyone-invested-in-this-platform-to-save-steemit-this-is-what-you-should-do
You already rejected most of it, but acted as if you agree with other parts of it, praising a moderated, centralized platform for being what it is.
If you want calibrae to be better than steemit, this is what you should do.
To win you need to accept my solution.