A Radically Updated Steem Whitepaper
The original Steem whitepaper outlined a vision for a blockchain database that supports community building and social interaction with cryptocurrency rewards. Over time, this vision has evolved, and the protocol to support that vision has evolved as well. The original whitepaper is no longer an ideal description of the Steem we see today.
We are therefore happy to announce that a new version of the whitepaper has been published, which is now technically accurate based on the current version of the blockchain. The new whitepaper can be downloaded here.
Some of the main changes made were:
- Updated information regarding the new economic rules and drastically lower inflation rate implemented by Hardfork 16.
- Changed the two year power down cycle to 13 weeks.
- Removed references to liquidity rewards.
- Removed references to mining/POW.
- Updated economics with new inflation rules.
- Changed SMD to SBD.
- Changed SBD to STEEM conversion from 7 days to 3.5.
- Added info on the 10% SBD debt ratio cap.
- Added clarity to witness policy for price feeds and APR based on the SBD debt level.
- Updated expected trading range for SBD peg under normal market conditions.
- Changed voting from n^2 to linear.
- Removed information on rate limited voting.
- Added information on voting power.
- Removed information on delayed payouts.
- Removed information on the rewarding of parent posts.
- Added info for 100% SP payout option.
- Changed from 19 to 20 top witnesses.
- Added witness who miss a block and haven’t produced in the last 24 hours will be disabled until they update their block signing key.
- Updated information on bandwidth limitations.
- Added information on SP delegation.
- Used old inflation rules to create an "Initial Allocation & Supply" section.
- Removed information on 10:1 reverse split.
- Clarified Value is in the Links section.
- Other miscellaneous wording and concept clarifications.
These changes are just the beginning. The main intention of this update was to bring the WP up to date, so that it did not contain inaccurate information. We will be releasing a new “Blue Paper” soon, which will be an entirely new document describing the Steem vision as we see it today.
There are many more updates soon to come, so stay tuned!
Team Steemit
Thanks for the Whitepaper revision to the current "state of the art." ;)
Regarding the discussions about the present level of abuse, please read and consider @mattclarke's extremely simple, well-reasoned proposal here:
I believe that his proposed simple, single change - restoring the balance between content creation and curation - would decrease the self-voting "abuse" and simultaneously draw "reader/curators" to the platform.
Not everyone is — nor should they be — content creators. Restoring a good level of curation rewards would encourage thoughtful reading and discourage self-voting on worthless comments.
While I'm here, I will also repeat my perennial appeal:
Please implement the long-promised perpetual editability in the user interface.
Thank you for your consideration!
😄😇😄
Thanks for the plug, @creatr; and for your ongoing support. @timcliff has told me that a return to 50/50 split between authors and curators is something being discussed, although it's not clear if it will be sufficient to completely remedy the issue.
My other recent suggestion is not one I've seen fielded elsewhere, and would minimise the copy/paste spam while attracting some heavy hitters from outside steemit. (Perhaps for scaling reasons it would be best left on ice until after launch).
Hey, Matt,
You're more than welcome...
Thank you for consistently presenting quality ideas. I have found your thoughts insightful, challenging, and inspiring, and (whenever I remember the source!) I'm always happy to credit your brilliance.
I just looked at your "comment regulator" post, and at first blush it also sounds like a winner. Please don't ever stop bringing your great observations to Steemit. ;)
Agreed. I assume the reason it does not yet exist is there are game theory problems.
I hope they can be solved at some point...
The game theory problems even with only a 25/75 split can never be solved.
What happened to escrow transactions?
https://steemit.com/sip/@dan/escrow-sip-steem-improvement-proposal
Steem escrow transactions would facilitate:
SBD would provide a lot of convenience for pricing.
The exchange, trade and lending would all happen using only fiat and the Steem blockchain and thus bypass Bitcoin as a gateway cryptocurrency.
This should increase the number of active Steem users, which in turn should increase the value and price of Steem.
I may be wrong but if the Steem blockchain supports escrow transactions, why not add the feature to User Interfaces such as Steemit.com and see what happens.
This, in my opinion is where developers should focus all their effort now.
Don't get distracted by the rewards, they are just a trojan horse. The real goal is to bootstrap a currency and a new economy around it.
Yes, YES!
I want an easy-to-use Steem shopping cart plugin to add to my website! ;)
Thanks in advance to the clever developer who comes up with that baby!
😄😇😄
Thats what I want too!
You probably right, so where are the tools for the new economy? Wouldnt drive the bootstrappong of Steem with marketplaces enabled using Steem as a primary coin? Wouldnt bootstrapping not be supported when getting the existing businesses to use Steemit/Steem as another promotional channel? But, commercial businesses have requirements, and they need to be fulfilled before they even consider to extend their communication and marketing channels with Steem/Steemit. I do not see anything that drives this! Nothing at all! While I know business segments that can be very interested in coming to Steemit, I also know that features at the backend are required on which I do not have any control over, so I (and others) can not start investing in the frontend features required to onboard these commercial businesses. The risks are simply to high! While when creating and executing a plan to onboard commercial businesses in a solid way, with co-operation of the various parties that needs to be involved, can drive the acceptance of Steem as a coin tremendously! As mentioned in another comment to this post: I do see a tremendous lack of (commercial) product management, a tremendous lack of winning propositions, and a tremendous lack of getting much more out of what is already being build.
Steemporium . It's a start.
Its so easy for people to be not just distracted but consumed by the payouts.....
Steemit has so much potential. Lets get it together community!
I started to reply, then the reply got to be too long, then it turned into a proposal, and then I forgot about it. If you are interested, here it is:
https://steemit.com/steem/@mkdouglas/proposal-how-steem-escrow-transactions-would-facilitate-trade-currency-exchange-and-lending-using-only-fiat-currencies-and-the-steem-blockchain-so-as-to-bypass-bitcoin-as-a-gateway-cryptocurrency-increase-the-number-of-active-steem-users-and-increase-the-
The escrow feature is supported on the blockchain and works fine as far as I know (though no primary UI support; I believe there was a third party app announced once that did support it). It probably should have been added to the white paper if it is missing.
Driving features that are available in the backend, shall be done be introducing and launching relevant services. When STINC is trying to bootstrap a coin, and STINC owns the UI to the Steem blockchain used by 90%+ of the Steemians, it shall be STINC who shall lead to way to launch marketplace + inbuild escrow. That will drive the usage of it, and that will drive others to invest time and money in creating such services using the Steem blockchain. I really do not understand the way STINC is trying to bootstrap Steem. They invented the idea of a social network, but dont execute on it in ways they should do; Making Steem yet another of those 100s and soon 1.000s of crypto coins in the market; That is hell of competition! Personally I see a tremendous lack of (commercial) product management, a real lack of good propositions, a lack of building the wide bridges between the existing commercial worlds (businesses) and the cryptoworld (Steem in our case). Where is the money? At brands and businesses! How can they be moved into cryptospace? Make the inclusion of cyptospace and coins seamless to their current operations and technical implementation. What is required for that? Solid and well thought through features, interfaces, adapters very likely different form vertical to vertical AND active marketing and sales approach to those commercial business.
yeah, it works... https://steemit.com/@sigmajin/transfers i tried it out two months back, and even got it working with steem-js.
this is the gui... https://steemit.com/escrow/@xtar/update-on-escrow-gui-service-bulletin-board it was actually developed for golos i think, and just happens to work with steem.
In your opinion, why do you think there is no escrow UI implementation or support by Steemit, Busy.org, ChainBB, eSteem etc.?
Escrow could easily add use cases for the Steem blockchain:
https://steemit.com/steem/@mkdouglas/proposal-how-steem-escrow-transactions-would-facilitate-trade-currency-exchange-and-lending-using-only-fiat-currencies-and-the-steem-blockchain-so-as-to-bypass-bitcoin-as-a-gateway-cryptocurrency-increase-the-number-of-active-steem-users-and-increase-the-
I don't have a good answer. I guess lack of critical mass in terms of community size and some subset of that community being focused on building commerce apps.
Simple reason: opportunity cost.
From an economic standpoint, this can be simply summarized as “opportunity cost”, i.e. we do not pick the fruit from the top of the tree first. Everyone has an economic incentive to pick the lowest hanging fruit.
@smooth, just stating the obvious which you already know … my guess is everyone is too busy making money in other ways that have higher economies-of-scale or are easier. The “problem” for those in the crypto industry is they are making too much money without needing to produce the best software. Many of those who invested in crypto early such as yourself, no longer need to work as programmers. For most that happened by mid-2017, yet I remember even in 2015 your opportunity cost was already very high. Those who continue to do so must have some other form of motivation.
Luckily I was too ill (thus depleted of capital) to make a lot of money investing in the first wave of crypto, so I am still hungry. Plus I have multiple “other forms of motivation” as well. Gut tuberculosis was the best thing that has ever happened in my life!
Good answer
Thank you for this very well-stated and reasoned observation. Getting bitcoin out of the loop is critical to growth!
The @steemshop people should be all over this!
Right On, and Steem on, friend!
With Bitcoin out of the loop, Smart Media Tokens would be easier to access from fiat currencies.
I expanded on the use cases for escrow UI that I had earlier mentioned:
https://steemit.com/steem/@mkdouglas/proposal-how-steem-escrow-transactions-would-facilitate-trade-currency-exchange-and-lending-using-only-fiat-currencies-and-the-steem-blockchain-so-as-to-bypass-bitcoin-as-a-gateway-cryptocurrency-increase-the-number-of-active-steem-users-and-increase-the-
Hello again, @mkdouglas,
Thanks for letting me know about your recent article. I don't have time to read and think about it carefully at this moment, as I'm preparing for the San Diego Maker Faire...
Nevertheless, as this is such an important issue I have given you a 100% up vote and have Re-Steemed the article so that it will hopefully gain a wider audience.
I'll get back to you later after I've had a chance to read and think about it.
Thanks for offering to resteem. I am open to suggestions and criticism.
I also made sure to follow you.
Hello, friend,
I would have replied sooner but I've been "flat out" and not available here.
First, I actually did hit the Re-Steem button before leaving you that message, and thought that the Re-Steem had already occurred... I apologize that it did not. I don't know what happened? In any case, I have now Re-Steemed and verified that the article was Re-Steemed to my blog. I don't know what happened, but Steemit occasionally "hiccups" like that.
Still don't have time to read it, but maybe Monday?
Kind regards,
- @creatr
Just curious about something...
It was never explained why the previous n^2 algorithm and its ability to mitigate abuse/exploitation was eliminated in favor of a full linear algorithm, which has led to a lot more widespread/rampant abuse of the rewards system. The new algorithm requires not a single shred of "consensus" when it comes to the allocation of rewards.
Does this not present a problem for dealing with serial spammers and collusion, like we have been seeing since the last hard fork (19) was implemented? Are there any discussions or plans to address this, or will we just simply have to continue playing catch-up with all of the new abuse/exploitation - and continue to waste tons of voting power on something that was adequately mitigated by several different protocols which have been removed/changed in consecutive hard forks?
This is an easy claim to make and when it comes to widespread I would agree it is obviously much more widespread. This makes perfect sense because under the previous algorithm the bulk of the user base (like 90%+) had virtually no ability to grant rewards and therefore no ability to abuse. That's like starving to death as a weight loss diet.
However, when it comes to the 'amount' or 'severity' of 'abuse' it is very difficult to be confident about that conclusion because excessive concentration of rewards and a few whales essentially siphoning off the entire pool (or nearly so) to a few preferred posters could also be considered abuse.
The role of posting, comment, voting, and rewarding in this system is to encourage widespread participation and growth of the platform. The precise allocation of rewards is less important, especially when that allocation is flatter and broader.
It does require consensus. If A upvotes and B downvotes (with equal weight) then no reward is paid. That is precisely a consensus-finding algorithm. If the community is unwilling to take a stand and downvote, it can't be helped.
Agreed, but please help us by making down-voting anonymous. This way we don't get burned by stepping on the wrong foot. I see worthless posts that really deserves a flag, but then I check their SP, and decide not to pick a fight.
Yes this is a problem for anyone with low SP but at the same time if it wan anonymous then people could just go and down vote anything they didn't like all day long and no one would then be able to hold them accountable.
Transparency is the savior and we must protect that at ALL costs.
I agree that transparency is valuable. Unfortunately, it is making the fight against misuse harder. Maybe we need a more creative way to solve this problem. Otherwise, this problem is crippling the whole system. Low-quality content is being rewarded more than high-quality content. I am sure Steem was not designed to do that.
BTW, I have just read a post by @heavey about a new ICO that is similar to Steem. It is called Red Pulse. They have devised some solutions to guarantee high-quality content. Maybe, we should check them out.
I don't think that transparency is the problem. The problem is that almost everyone is here to make money and as usual willing to compromise honesty, integrity, fairness etc to get a piece of the pie.
I am sure there is already a solution that exists to deal with this and I feel the solution is just that this community curates content they feel is valuable and flags stuff that isn't. Guilds/groups are the way to go.
If a lowly wimpy minnow or plankton finds flag worthy content they can just report it to the group and the group with all the power can do the down voting if the warning meats criteria.
Its actually very simple, then the entire community becomes the security camera that sees EVERYTHING and the whales become the enforcement. Its perfect.
I think accounts should not be able to upvote their own posts. This way abusers will be forced to create other accounts to upvote. Those other accounts won't have a lot of SP and as such won't be intimidating to users who want to downvote their posts.
Maybe in the current situation a lot of people who would have downvoted the posts were scared off by the SP.
Its just as easy to transfer or delegate sp to a sock puppet.
The account posting spam and the account with the SP will be different. Other naive users will be more confident to downvote a spamming account with little to no SP. The SP account might still retaliate but might also have to deal with many naive users who downvoted his Spam account.
Let me try and give an illustration:
Mob boss (SP account)
Puppet (Spam account)
Government contract (Rewards from self voting)
Currently the mob boss can go for government contracts and do a bad job. People will keep quiet about it because they do not want to suffer the wrath of the mob boss.
If the rules didn't allow the mob boss to get government contracts, the mob boss would have to get a puppet to get the government contracts. If the puppet does a bad job, people who are not aware of the puppet's links to the mob boss will act to punish the puppet. If enough naive people act against the puppet, the well-informed might join in to punish the puppet. This is how revolutions happen. It requires enough naive (or brave) people to act.
Moral of this: it is easier to scare off individuals before they act than to scare off masses after they act.
I hope I made sense.
It makes sense but not sure I actually agree it would apply/work here on this platform.
Anyone with little sp/rep will not do flagging if they get retaliated on, regardless of it its from the boss or henchman. People are just as scared of the henchman as the boss. Because everyone knows the boss calls the shots and the henchman dish it out.
Steemit does have potential to be a place of honor and ideals but is currently very far from that. This community would probably actually be a lot better without the money yet none of us want to give it up either hahaha
Unless a spam post has two votes and a big reward, it requires some work to identify henchmen and people are generally lazy.
Laziness kicks in before fear.
Somebody will come across the spam post, check the posting account REP:
Independent of the questions raised about whether this is a good idea, there isn't obviously any mechanism for doing this. To limit spam, the voter needs to be 'charged' for the bandwidth and vote power, which means the voter must be identified. To alter that would require some radical changes in the system design.
Agreed. The benefits of HF-19 far outweigh the negative impact of the spammers.
I agree with this statement in the most literal sense.
that is to say, under n^2, the abuse was more concentrated. It was a very few people making six figures annually (steemguild, curie, etc).
The total percentage of the reward pool going to spam/abuse is, i suspect, probably about the same (and if its higher, ite because many whales got fed up with fighting abuse and now just sell their votes), there are just more people getting some of it. .
Obviously, neither situation is optimal, but if we're going to pay out a significant share of the reward pool to abusers, the abuser community should at least be inclusive.
created a discussion here: https://steemit.com/abuse/@timcliff/whitepaper-discussion-on-voting-abuse
The Witnesses voted for linear over n^2 and that is why there is linear. Overwhelmingly, it appears to have positive results in terms of user engagement and growth. Consider other alternatives than n^2 to mitigate "abuse."
I'm sure there are many other ways to address the spam caused by self voting, none of them perfect, I just wish people working at Steemit were more engaged in the discussion of possible solutions, There has been at least 15 serious posts specifically about the issue and possible solutions and nobody from Steemit commented on them if only to acknowledge having read it.
Hopefully, they're actually already working on it behind the scenes.
Even I just wrote about the issues here.
I haven't exactly been here all that long, but the problems are obvious.
We'll see how long they'll let them drag on for fear of upsetting the "witnesses."
If nothing valid is done to combat the problem, we'll all be witnesses to the downfall of steem. :P
As much as I love Steemit, Steemit is very well known for horrible communication as well as PR.
Could be so easily fixed. Maybe one day, one day it will have to be in order to reach the masses thats for sure.
well, that's all detailed in the whitepaper.
Consider other alternatives to full linear in order to mollify new users and users who are not well-versed on how to build their social media presence/following.
And also consider that there were other protocols that have been eliminated, as I stated in my original comment. A series of changes has led to the amount of abuse/exploitation that we see today. If you'd like to know more about what's actually happening around here, feel free to visit:
https://steemit.chat/channel/steemitabuse
Also - talk with some of the whales around here who have been doing their best to counter the abuses. People like @transisto and @berniesanders, and other users like @pfunk and myself. If you want lists with figures, I'm sure we can compile some...and a few users are already doing it.
@spaminator
@sherlockholmes
Why don't you be more specific? Do you mean increasing the slope of the reward and curation curves?
It could be interesting trying to improve behavior by allowing these curves to pass an array of float couples that represents a polynomial function. For example if you pass [['1', '1']] it's like the current flat reward curve. [['1', '-1']] for square root curation curve. [['0.5', '2'], ['-1', '1']] for f(x) = x²/2 - x and so on. Maybe in that case just doing a % of quadratic + a % of linear.
Would love Steem to be able to offer those choices, but as I have literally told you before, IME it hasn't been found to be safely implementable. However, you're of course free to code it up and propose it to the Witnesses
Maybe you can be more specific as well?
It's one thing to just ignore what I typed in my original comment. It's another thing to go off about "float couples" and "polynomial functions" instead of actually answering my initial questions honestly. You know...the ones about abuse mitigation that had previously existed but now does not.
If you willingly choose to be ignorant about what's been happening since the last hard fork(s), then just refrain from engaging in discussions about it. Send me one of your other team members to honestly talk about it. Drowning the discussion with posturing, deflections, and distractions gets us nowhere.
He is not ignorant. They know what they’re doing.
He is not ignorant. They know what they are doing.
Why not use an extended error function curve (A Half-Gaussian) for rewards, this would allow newer users to be restricted in their voting strength, with moderate users getting more of a vote (those who have published good content and have made enough in order to have a vote), while still keeping the higher-steem users having more of the vote, this would seem like a much better 'In the middle' approach between quadratic and linear reward system.
Hi @ats-david, as a minnow, thanks for sharing your experience. Do you think more blogs that help to point out the worst offenders would be a welcome addition to the community, or frowned upon? e.g. Perhaps weekly lists of users worth flagging, or similar. Thanks
I think this is exactly what we are trying to get away from needing, and exactly what points out we still have many problems that need to be dealt with.
Can someone help explain this to me? I am a new user (joined yesterday) and all i see is a ton of bots and services to pay to promote your posts...not at all what I consider curated content. Before I decide to spend any time or money with SteemIt i'd really like to understand the plan for preventing that and surfacing actual content.
Content curation/filtering is the responsibility of the interface. Steemit or other interfaces can continue to rely on community curation or scale up using machine learning and other techniques to reduce spam and bot interactions.
@ned I'm sure the communities will raise the level of user interaction in both content creation and curation. They will make content so much more discoverable. I'm not sure if the feed will have changes to it too, to maybe include recommended content? Can't wait to get use the new UI/UX! I'm sure interaction levels will significantly increase.
Ned, you sound allot smarter about blockchain tech than you did before :)
Hum... that's all u got?
What about using a captcha? And why wouldn't Steemit want to filter that? Am I the only one who doesn't want to read a bunch of automated bot comments?
Captcha is ineffective for the reason that the underlying infrastructure is publicly accessible. Steemit can be circumvented by any willing body.
That's a good point - but Ned while I seem to have your attention for a minute here - maybe you could help me understand why someone who isn't into the crypto-craze would want to use SteemIt. Right now to me it seems like a big game of programming bots and/or gaming the system to promote posts rather than to surface good content.
One example of a community i read frequently is Hacker News - if something like that could exist on the Steem platform (meaning the quality of the content) and the contributors could get paid for their contributions, then I think Steem could become huge. Right now I guess i'm not sure if i see how that can happen.
Sorry I'm not Ned, and don't know him, and I hope you don't mind my thoughts on your question. You see, I'm not interested in the crypto-craze.
On steemit, I do not need to have hoards of angry bee's following me to take care of any troll issues I might have in other social media. I think the reason for so few trolls on Steemit is that they know what ever they type it will be around forever, and that they can't type, slam someone, then edit and make the other guy look like an idiot. There is a record of the edits. Lack of Trolls is a big plus on Steemit. Another reason, is that even though I am not into the crypto-craze, it is nice to see that my comments on another person's post could be rewarded. Bonus free money even if it is only 0.001 cent or less. It's not the money.
Sometimes, not a lot though, I have my own thoughts to share with people, and it is pretty easy to do, yeah it is hit and miss on how many of the 200,000+ real people, (I saw one blog that there may be upto 10,000+ bots), would see my post. But that does not matter to me, why am I here, for the content, there are so many great writers on here, so many artist, and I do not have to be distracted by the content being obscured by advertisement I am totally not into. No ADS, Great Content. That is why I am here.
Would you consider making the Steemit post/comment views data publicly available via a JSON RPC for example? This shouldn't take much, and would really help collaborative filtering and other machine learning to improve user experiences.
put
.jsonon the end of any url on steemit.com, like the one you are on right nowOh, wait, that doesn’t do comments.
Those are all already available via JSON-RPC from steemd at https://steemd.steemit.com.
That's useful info (which I didn't know) thanks, but I meant the views data as stored in Steemit's private database.
I'm doing quite a lot of work with the blockchain data, but it doesn't give the user page views which would be really helpful. Anyway, I don't expect it's possible, but thought it worth asking.
Yes, I'm aware of how the process works.
I'm not following. Witness choices is WHY there is a change.
That's a bit disingenuous. You personally reshuffled the witness cabinet to insure that outcome.I retract this claim.
That didn't happen. First of all nearly all of the top 30 witnesses (meaning the top 20 plus the next 10 who might reasonable by voted in their place) were in favor of it and second of all there has been relatively little reshuffling of the witnesses at all for months (for better or worse). Unlike some other proposals (including ones which Steemit very strongly supported and were not activated), there wasn't even much controversy over this one.
I remember there being some shuffling close to the hard fork time, but maybe I'm thinking of HF 17? Do you remember if there was more reshuffling then?
Anyway I have apologized for the claim, should have thought more before saying that.
I don't specifically remember but that is very possible. HF17 was more controversial (and ultimately rejected/withdrawn).
Sounds about right. Thanks
I don't claim to remember every detail of this past year and a half but I respectfully disagree. I had removed all votes and ordered personnel under contracts at steemit to do the same.
Oh, my mistake. Sorry for the false accusation.
@andrarchy did mention this to me about steemit's personnel under contract, not allowed to vote on witnesses!
Yes the hf19 was very bad for a lot of people, I still earn cents from it, even after having more that 1300 followers and posting everyday, I hope the hf20 will be fair enough to change the situation
HOLY FUCK THIS WAS A BUNCH OF CRAP TO WADE THRU
So don't expect anyone but the most SELF INTERESTED to do so...
Looks like just an excuse for another comment self vote 😂
This has come and gone in last weeks. With price feed premiums, more SBD's were created and finally the peg is maintained. (by the way charging negative interest rates is not supported in current protocol)
and why is that?
love your work and contribution to the platform.. but you forgot something... you never upvoted me..;-)
Previous version of whitepaper for those who want to compare https://app.box.com/s/hmq5p0skko40vi55f8pi4j631sqe3los
no thanks.. i live now and not in the past.. but great that you share it... let the future come!!!
specifically what version of the whitepaper is this? Because, though its dated, reading it one really wouldn't get the impression that things haven't been this way from jump street (whereas most of the main concepts covered in the white paper are 540 degree turn-arounds from the original concepts presented 9in the white paper.
Wouldn't an accurate, intellectually honest version of the whitepaper be one that described the chain as designed, its philosophical underpinnings at the time of its creation, the changes that were enacted
tbh, if you know how far off this is from the original policy wise, writing it this way (trying to make it seem as if this was the original plan) makes it feel like a bunch of cobbled together rationalizations.
Yes, and a lot of the rationalizations are contradictory. For example:
Changing super-linear curves to full-linear represented a huge change in rationale and has had a significant impact on the system.
Reading the new version of the whitepaper, this reasoning/change/impact isn't apparent. It makes things feel a bit disjointed. The original, while people may have disagreed with certain elements of it, was at least coherent.
not a huge change, IMO. downvoting and superlinearity were always intended to be somwhat reduandant to oneanother. At least, thats the impression i got from the original whitepaper. I know you blame linearity for a lot of steem s woes, but i don't agree with you that its the cause of a lot of the problems to which you attribute it.
a far bigger change is the philosophical take on inflation. Its fine to say "inflation is no big deal, fire up the printing presses" and its also find to say "moneysupply control is super important and we have to keep inflation in check."
But to start out saying "inflation is no big deal fire up the printing presses!" print yourself up a bunch of money, then as youre rubbing your hundreds of million steem on your titties say "oh we changed out mind. money supply matters now no more inflation" seems a little dishonest.
To go a step further and instead of saying "oh we changed our mind" just implying that its always been the policy by publishing an unannotated whitepaper well , that seems a step beyond 'a little dishonest'.
This isn't exactly accurate. I don't blame linearity for the woes. I blame linearity for making spamming and other abuses more lucrative - and therefore more attractive. The ability to relentlessly spam is another issue altogether which is not caused by the linear rewards algorithm.
Awesome!! Definitely worth a read to stay updated 😉
I was really hoping for something to address some of the problems or something really new.
Seriously... This just makes me feel like throwing in the towel when an updated white paper is:
There have already been a few replies to this. The WP was not the 'huge edition' announcement.
Let's talk "BLUE"...
there's going to be an even bigger Edition to the whitepaper ? ;)
Blue Paper is coming; let's see what it contains ;-)
This is more of the order or addressing a long overdue fuck-up than something worth building excitement around.
So the Steemit whitepaper project on GitHub is no more? Guess my work was for nothing 😭
At least you have updated it.
We're going to migrate this new text to that repo soon in the form of PRs. Your work was not in vain. :)
The output from that repo with the updated text will be the canonical pdf version.
That's great to hear, awesome! 😆