So just contact thejohalfiles, freedom, roadscape, ned, adm (is it pfunk?).
dan and blocktrades seem to have surrendered and blocktrades does business as usual.
I checked blocktrades' last 5 pages in steemd before posting this, and not a single downvote.
Your policy of not rewarding yourself full force also worsens the problem, since it seems like you will never have the power yourself, even if you wanted to fight the spam.
Everyone I asked ignored this question:
Is the STEEM blockchain sustainable?
The rate of growth in spam exceeds the rate of technological advance.
You deal with these issues daily, so you should know.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't send requests like this to individuals. It would be considered spam.
I think so. There are some optimizations that will need to be made at some point, and the hardware requirements to run a blockchain node will likely continue to increase, but I believe it will continue to scale.
Posting it to your audience of followers is not spam, but contacting the shotcallers and asking for help, not for yourself, but for the entire project is spam?
What is your opinion about deletions from the blockchain?
And if a blockchain can not allow them (although I believe it can with a big enough consensus), then hard forks for the mere purpose of deletion if necessary?
And the same questions and answers applied for elimination of stolen rewards (like what should have been done against zeartul) or clear cases of spam (checkthisout/grumpy, bernie and others I read about).
Yes, sending unsolicited requests to stakeholdres asking them to use their stake in a certain way is considered spam.
Whatever is entered in the blockchain is stored there forever.
It would require a hardfork to do this. I do not currently see any cases where I would personally support a fork to remove any content from the blockchain.
If users follow proper security precautions, their accounts and funds will not be stolen. If users do not follow proper precautions and lose their account or funds, it is not the responsibility of the development team and witnesses to correct their mistake. It actually puts the devs and witnesses in a dangerous position of authority to have that power, as many cases are not black and white, and could even be fraudulent claims.
Where informing about and asking to fight spam is considered spam, the situation gets to what it came to here.
The zeartul case is a clear enough case of a scam.
I am not well informed about it, but I think he was a pioneer of the "no refunds" policy, and he did get some fraction of an SBD from me, his bot did not vote on, and he refused to refund after I informed him about it and since then I knew not to use it and not to deal with him.
Of course trying to alarm others collectively would have been futile, ignored and considered immature in any case it would have been noticed.
Whose responsibility was the ETC case?
(Why) Does it matter whose responsibility you consider it to be?
Certain acts demand extreme actions, or else psychopathy is rewarded.
It is also burglary victims' fault that they were not sufficiently armed, trained and alert.
If it depended on me, I would have used extreme actions in less extreme cases than zeartul.
This comment has received a 19.61 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP