You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Video: some thoughts on the DLive exit and the Hard Fork 20 resource credit system
Yeah, adjusting things for more evergreen content valuation from a UI perspective would certainly be an interesting approach, but some may also see it as a form of "double spend" if the same content gets opened up again and again for extracting from the rewards pool.
I understand the concern. I spoke with marky mark about this , this morning. But the problems with not having evergreen content out weights having it and that getting the "needed investors" inside of steem and not building on a crappy, non-decentralized currency like EOS. These investors want happy end users and better retention. Both can be acheived with earnings past 7 days. You may even have whales powerup just to upvote a favorite post everyone loves for years. I'm thinking 5 years from now. Not in the current "steemit" ecosystem that is so small.
This sounds like more crypto tribalism. You realize the EOS and STEEM are essentially the same in terms of how they are governed, right? The big problem with EOS right now is the lack of voter engagement.
What makes you think it's "non-decentralized"?
The problem with EOS is the constitution, as well as the way the structure exists they can freeze accounts, and have done so. This is why it's not "decentralized" or a true blockchain in the way bitcoin or Steem currently is. It's not crypto tribalism. I think many other coins can have a use case. But EOS seems to have completely forgotten the purpose of "Censor resistance" inside their blockchain. Also, the code is differnt luke. The have "Arbitrator".
Proof here of centralization via one signature.
Please , if you can explain how EOS is not centralized i'd like to hear your thoughts.
Flagged for not defending your argument EOS is decentralized. Have a nice day.
Or more accurately, "flagged because you didn't respond as quickly as I wanted you to."
Come on, man.
You do realize these accounts asked to be "censored", right? It's amazing to me how often this story gets twisted while the block producers who were actually involved in protecting peoples' property know the real story (and even submitted themselves to arbitration for acting quickly to protect the property because ECAF was moving too slowly). That property was provably demonstrated cryptographically as belonging to the accounts which asked to be added to the blacklist. You act as if some dude just randomly decided to censor some random accounts. Property was taken by thieves and the victims used the capacity of a governed blockchain to temporarily blacklist those accounts until something could be done in the future to retrieve their property (most likely with a fully-functioning arbitration system along with a referendum to put in an accepted constitution in place of the interim constitution).
A governed blockchain as concept isn't "centralized" even if in the beginning interim systems are used to get off the ground. If you think actual censorship of anyone other than a provable thief would be possible on a public blockchain, then you may not understand how this all works. The blacklist done on EOS could be done today on Steem just the same if witnesses decided to not process transactions from specific accounts. There is no "Arbitrator" code, just an agreement within the interim constitution to accept arbitration. That's okay not to like arbitration or ricardian contracts or any number of other things that make EOS unique, but please don't throw around the "It's centralized" argument when it's a DPOS system functioning very similar to BitShares and Steem.
Again, I'm a witness on Steem and a block producer on EOS via eosDAC. What you're saying doesn't match the actual software involved or how it was used to protect property. To make false claims about a blockchain you don't like without understanding is a sign of crypto tribalism.
Correct, I should have said, Flagged for avoiding my point and sticking to this EOS argument I couldn't care less about. I removed the flag. I just don't understand your deflection into EOS.
It wasn’t a deflection. You made what appeared to me to be an inaccurate statement so I asked for clarification. You doubled down and flagged me.
My apologizes. I shouldn't have flagged, your comment about EOS, it's something we don't have to agree on. I'd rather agree on things that can better the Steem platform. Even if it is your ideas.