And what point does that have to do with ACTUALLY regulating crypto, you confuse the issue we are discussing with one that vaguely seems to support your position, as if a court recognizing the value of a crypto could be comparable or follow with the line of thinking (there isn't one) that they CAN regulate it.
You are an example of blabering. Tell me again how the mafia was untouchable before they were regulated. Or whatever you wanted to say with your analogy that falls flat on its face the moment someone actually considers what they had read.
You did miss the article. Okay, that crypto can now be traded on the open market, as in stock exchanges, meaning now they DO have to follow REGULATORY guidelines, (I'll give you a minute to say ouch and recover)....the reasoning being is that these losses/claims being filed in courts couldn't move forward because without there being a recognized value attached there couldn't be any claims of damages brought forth. So yes this has become a significant issue, so yes this is a small step forward, so yes people running crypto currencies will slowly face the possibilities of being regulated and sued, so they had better get their ducks in a row.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't have to say Ouch because it clearly has nothing to do with the TECHNOLOGY behind the assets but with the assets themselves. Do you understand that difference? The assets might be "regulated" on the exchange, but there is no blockchain regulations or Crypto Regulations, people can and will be able to send their crypto to different decentralized exchanges that cannot be regulated by design. In the end, you don't undestand basic Logic: if a is b and b is c then c is a.
Except the significant "issue" isn't specified by you, I am led to believe by the context that you think the issue of the court recognizing the value of an asset is the same as the court recognizing a legitimate reason to regulate the asset or even more infuriating that they court could ever tell people how they can and can't create the technology behind the assets. So again, can you logically, explaining without uncertainty and without vagueness, exactly why and how a court recognizing the value of an asset means that we should worry about the court regulating blockchain?
You cannot sue a cryptocurrency because it's trustless, decentralized, there isn't anyone behind it that can be sued, that's why you cannot sue BITCOIN, you genius.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OMG, Steemit is a PRIVATELY HELD COMPANY, those running the company are directly responsible for following regulations. It wasn't a judge but someone on a regulatory committee who approved a crypto currency to trade on the open market, to bring it under regulatory controls, because so many claims for losses were being filed, in order to address those losses there had to be recognition of it to have value, once value is confirmed people can file against people who start their own crypto currencies founded companies. So, and just for example, say someone sues Steemit because they lost thousands of dollars for being flagged like this guy claimed for no real good reason, and because Steemit owners allow this to happen that person can directly file suit against the owners of Steemit because they are the one's in control of how it is structured, the way they structured the program led to the losses. Flagging is meant for a purpose not for a revenge tool, if Steemit continues to let it be abused for ways other then it was intended they could potentially be held liable if Steem were also added to the open market.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And what regulations are those and how are they affecting the blockchain which is an Open Source, FREE TO FORK and FREE TO COPY.
And if you understood that none of that means that they can regulate the blockchain but the trading and selling of assets on an exchange you would realize that it doesn't mean anything in the context of what we are discussing. But you would have to realize that you don't even know what blockchain is or how it functions.
Actually that makes no senese, because Steemit is not the ones in charge of how it's structured at all, the witnesses are. So the judge will laugh at you when that little detail gets brought up, a detail you'd be privy to had you actually understood what you were talking about.
Yeah in your dream land where people are held liable for things that they never guaranteed you dumbass. "But they promised me that I wouldn't lose my money", for example, or the fantasy of holding people like Steemit, which is only a front end of the blockchain, as responsible FOR the blockchain, which is done by the community and witnesses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do you understand that if the court wants to regulate Steem for example it would have to FORCE 19 witnesses that run the network to act in a certain way? Do you realize that those people would only be replaced the moment they act against the community by the first 19 most popular ones that the court hasn't ordered yet to do that, and if they order those other 19, another will step up, and ultimately they cannot force people who are anonymous and don't know where they are, and it takes only one to stop them from doing whatever they order. In other words, do you understand that when you said that "there's nobody untouchable" you painted yourself into a corner and made yourself look like an idiot, as clearly anonymity itself has made satoshi untouchable and there are plenty of instances where like a decentralized exchange, no regulations could happen, regardless of what the court orders, exactly like torrents.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do you also understand that 19 witnesses get together with those who structure the programs to find ways to come into compliance so they don't have to go to jail, spend all their money defending themselves...and that would only be if the feds didn't freeze their assets. I mean really man makes some sense, do you think that dozens upon dozens of people want to disrupt their lives, lose their fortunes, just so some guy can abuse a flagging system in a way that was not intended? Really? Honestly? I know 19 witnesses who'd rather give up being a witness and call it good.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do you honestly believe that you can blame the witnesses for the flagging of one account on the basis that they are responsible for providing only fair use of flagging when in the WHITE PAPER its clearly stated that the point of Steem is NOT to prevent abuse. You idiot. Keep blabbering on explaining to me how this place functions as I have been debating those functions with the people that use it and code it for a year and some months now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You were the one who brought the witnesses into this. I wasn't even thinking about them, why on earth would someone want to sue the witnesses?....it's the owners that would get sued. I don't know what country you come from but here in the US people get protected from abuse, and your blockchain can abuse all they want but you know what?...those who develop and allow the abuse can be sued for loses of those abuses if regulatory value is instilled. Once again, Steemit is a privately held company, as a privately held company the owners can be held liable for abuse.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Because there are no Owners genius.
You cannot sue for loses because nobody guaranteed you anything, genius. You cannot sue for abuse because someone voicing their opinion with a flag is completely in line with the rules.
Steemit doesn't own Steem, genius, Once again read the whitepaper, inform yourself and bite your tongue before spreading FUD.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What would be the losses exactly genius? And who would be sued? the user? the Owners, for not stopping abuse as if they made such promises (no, the developer, READ NOT OWNERS, expressed clearly that the goal is never preventing abuse).
You keep saying Steemit is centralized, Steemit is Privately Owned but you fail to see that the CEO of steemit has said this:
When issues with the License for steem were brought up, exemplifying that same ethos that had been at the foundation of steem a two years ago: Steem will go on despite Steemit. Steemit is not Steem.
#abuseoflogic
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
STEEM is not decentralized. From the beginning it was and still remains highly centralized. The launch of the STEEM network was heavily rigged to ensure that the developer and his ‘friends’ had control over majority of supply. Furthermore, this has major implications for the Steemit platform.
The top 247 accounts on Steemit (most of which are probably owned by the developer and his ‘friends’ through duplicate accounts) own ~87.50% of total stake, without including the main steemit account which is also controlled by the dev. Although any user can vote for content, the influence of your vote corresponds to the amount of STEEM you convert on your account. This means the typical user’s vote is almost meaningless unless they manage to acquire a high stake in total supply.
https://decentralize.today/the-ugly-truth-behind-steemit-1a525f5e156
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It has been decentralized the moment that it got forked into Golos, Wake UP. Who cares how much of the stake is owned when the freaking CODE is free to copy and paste wherever you want for whatever you want? What's the problem with them holding a huge stake in a decentralized platform? It still doesn't make the fact that it's decentralized any different or less, it's not "a little decentralized" ok. When you speak of centralized power you are referring to how the voting power is distributed into a group, and it is not so as the group isn't officially or unofficial a Group even, only a distinction you draw based on opinions and not fact, so it's completely a value judgement from your personal viewpoint and NOTHING more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Either way you evade the numerous points I made and try to tweeze one hypothetical that still doesn't give the courts or authority any upper hand over the system that IS and WAS designed specifically to thwart GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, and that includes stopping people from expressing their opinion of content as they see fit, regardless of how "Abusive" it gets interpreted, flagging is freedom of expression, and if you would have taken the numerous pointers to examine and research what blockchain actually is, you might have read in the whitepaper that preventing abuse is not the goal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Now you are going off on a censorship rant. Listen to you. Okay Steemit was built that thwart not just censorship from government but from censorship period. Meaning if someone was using the flagging system to censor someone into oblivion a person could file in court that the platform was built to avoid censorship, therefore the flag being used to silence someone is in violation of the rules, the rules have to apply overall, the companies failure to apply the rules overall opens them up to liability from the affected filer. If you are flagging someone to silence them that is abuse of the flagging system.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You cannot call it censorship genius because not one BYTE has been altered, the content is the same as it was posted. To censor something the ability to alter content is required. If you cannot change the content then you fail at "censoring", furthermore since nobody can stop someone from posting or speaking their mind when and where they want it's not suppressive to flag the content and make it by default replaced with a clearly visible and intriguing button that says "REVEAL HIDDEN POSTS". The point about censorship is that regulations over the blockchain would indeed be CENSORSHIP, and they would be trespassing on the freedom of expression, which ties in directly to what I was telling the author of this post: flagging is nothing more than someone's opinion on your content. You cannot silence anyone with CURATION. Hence that is why calling Curation TERRORIZING is so ridiculous, and then to equate it to Censorship when it has none of the elements of censorship (least a centralized position of power that "censors") is a stretch. If you bring those arguments before a judge you better realize that he might even side with you but he will tell you straight up that it doesn't matter because you cannot enforce YOUR OPINION on other people, which is essentially what being entitled to no negative opinions in a public forum is nonsense and contrary to the very basic principles of freedom of expression.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://decentralize.today/the-ugly-truth-behind-steemit-1a525f5e156
Censorship comes in many forms, intimidation is one of them. The material may stay on a page but the damage is done through ruining people's reputations and flagging their accounts to a loss.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Intimidation might be used to effect censorship but Intimidation by itself is not a form of Censorship, in fact, intimidation is usually used to force people to say or do things that they don't want to. Censorship cannot happen if I can click a button and it reveals whatever was censored and censorship is completely redundant when you can post freely what you want regardless of how people curate your content. Intimidation is equally redundant becasuse intimidation and threats can come from all forms, not only downvoting but explicitly through acts and deeds, and "ruining reputation" is clearly not censorship, but a metric that Curates your account in the community. Saying that the material is not affected is basically admitting there is no censorship, and vacating your position is demonstrated by moving onto arguing about the reputation as if the account holder is responsible for only the good curation to his content, reek of entitlement much?
If the equivalent of steemit(not steem because there is no hidden things on steem) censorship existed on youtube or anywhere else it would never be considered censorship, the only reason it's considered censorship here is because people have distorted what censorship is and used that loaded concept to play off peoples emotions and reactionary stances instead of speaking with precision and specifity so as not to create confusion or distort the facts and lead people to interpret Curation as Censorship. Is it Censorship when people downvote things on youtube? Or is censorship when the comments get deleted? Or you consider censorship both and believe that only Porn and Threats or Plagiarism and Spam should be "censored", or not even those? Fuck that I don't want to debate censorship with someone that speaks at length like an idiot about things they ought to know better, like SteemIt being Steem.
BTW, nobody can stop you from posting, you can post with -10000000 reputation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also you missed the point, PREVENTING ABUSE IS NOT THE GOAL. read the whitepaper.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit