— SteemCN

berniesanders (77) · 6 years ago

And how much did you spend on that "fundamentally important" development, @ned?

$1.15

9 votes

maikelblogo (49) · 6 years ago

Well, i don't know. Let's see below my comment...

$0.00

rouketas (61) · 6 years ago

FYI sir @berniesanders drugs & whores don't come for free ...

$0.00

mindtrap (74) · 6 years ago

Weren’t 2/4 supposed to be ready many months ago?

$0.03

enforcer48 (68) · 6 years ago

You mean the entire list was meant to be done time and a half ago?

$0.00

madalchemist (52) · 6 years ago

2 years later Steemit has failed to deploy my roadmap, even things that were largely developed before I left.
Dan Larimer on Steemit (2 December 2018)
https://www.reddit.com/r/eos/comments/a2jen4/dan_larimer_views_about_steemit/

$0.02

3 votes

sharpshot (65) · 6 years ago

I don't think Dan Larimer can have an unbiased opinion about steemit. Why would they deploy his roadmap when they obviously fell out over the direction things were going? I don't like how slowly things are happening with steemit but hopefuly the bear market has made people more focused on their tasks. Lets see where we are in another 2 years, Steem isn't all about steemit, so even if Ned doesn't come up with the goods, I think other people already are.

$0.05

4 votes

organduo (72) · 6 years ago (edited)

Yes, people should stop identifying Steem with Steemit Inc and with Ned. Worker-boss mentality doesn't work in decentralized world. There are many DApps here and Steemit was the first one. So other DApps will continue the development in a decentralized way.

I don't think it's worth hating or praising Ned and Steemit Inc. More power to the people...

$0.02

smooth (70) · 6 years ago (edited)

in decentralized world

This is not "decentralized world". There are actual reasonably-decentralized systems out there and this isn't one of them. Steemit's dominant share of the stake (about 35% of voting stake which is more than enough to be considered absolutely dominant in practice), willingness to use this stake to threaten and replace witnesses, and now the fact that the stake is on its way to becoming invisible means that this is not a decentralized cryptocurrency if it is even a cryptocurrency at all.

Oh, and the 35% doesn't count founders' stake which was split off from the same steemit account, as well as already-hidden accounts (there is no way to know that Steemit's stake sent to exchange accounts in the past was all sold and not powered back up into new accounts), and the mysterious (and heavily witness-influencing) freedom account which is or was almost certainly associated with Steemit in some manner. It is quite possible there could be absolute (50%+) control, although given non-transparency of some of this we really don't know, and given more non-transparency in the future we will know even less.

At best this has promise of future decentralization. At worst it is a complete sham of decentralization.

$0.08

5 votes

organduo (72) · 6 years ago

Let's believe in the future then. And yes, freedom might actually be steemit's another account. Who can tell...

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

[1] Some Iron Laws of Political Economics

anonymint (65) · 6 years ago (edited)

There are actual reasonably-decentralized systems out there and this isn't one of them.

Can you name any such “reasonably-decentralized” proof-of-stake system or are you only thinking of proof-of-work variants?

For some of the past discussion of why extant distributed ledger designs aren’t decentralized, c.f. also my comments in Theymos’ thread as posted by @Traxo, @theheolyn, @Hyperme.sh and @CRED.me in the linked thread.

One of the design goals for making a proof-of-stake system decentralized is to make the profit for stakers from decentralization competitive with the profit for them from centralized extraction. To this end, one of the first problems that no proof-of-stake (nor proof-of-work) system has solved is a decentralized, competitive free-market for transaction fees. You may remember I presciently identified transaction fees in 2013 as the Achilles heel of extant blockchains protocols. Voting is not a decentralization paradigm.[1][2] I believe I had (in 2016) solved this design problem and other design flaws of proof-of-stake.

[2] Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work: Money and Politics (archived)

At best this has promise of future decentralization.

Unlikely when the premise of voting to reward from a collectivized debasement pool has a math and logic which is unavoidably centralization. Any changes they have made to the reward algorithm since I wrote that linked blog are irrelevant. I can still show how whales can take more than their proportional share of the rewards.

P.S. Neither Ned nor the new lady running the daily operations have the necessary skills, knowledge, and intellect to achieve the game theory and economics models that decentralizing a consensus ledger requires. Heck even Satoshi wasn’t able to design a system that could remain decentralized as minted block reward declines as a percentage of miner’s block revenue.

Well given Satoshi was likely a group of researchers with a collective IQ much higher than yours and mine combined, I say it’s quite likely that it was designed to fall to oligarchy (i.e. centralized) miner control at the end game (NWO, 666, etc).

And Monero doesn’t solve the problem with certitude given its relatively minuscule tail reward, for many different reasons, one of which includes a huge carrot incentive to centralize the mining so as to deanonymize Monero’s honeypot. I do think Monero is a honeypot, as is Tor. Remember way back I was arguing to you (and other Monero faithful) that Tor and I2P are honeypots and you guys shook me off like a bad case of fleas. And I ended up vindicated.

Underlying problem is that proof-of-work mining isn’t a consistently profitable endeavor (listen to Richard’s video) which means it must be monopolized. Mining is high-risk similar to farming, the farms get aggregated because the smaller farmers eventually go bust (due to bad weather, blight, etc). This is why Bitmain was for example was toppling the applecart (and ended up apparently destroying themselves).

Also it’s not correct to claim with certitude that a hypothetical future centralization of Monero’s mining will not deanonymize current and past transactions because:

We don’t know when the mining has become centralized, might have already occurred in the past.
And/or even unmasking future Ring signature transactions can aid in combinatorial unmasking of past Ring signatures wherein the future transactions share Ring signature inputs with the past ones.

Along with numerous other logic errors I caught him making, @dinofelis isn’t cognizant that theoretically a 51% attack can deanonymize Monero’s ring signatures and Grin’s MimbleWimble because the miner can pay himself transaction fees and spam the mixes with his own transactions thus unmasking who is in the mix other than himself:

As to the problem of censor resistance, I think that not decentralization, but anonymity is the answer. In Monero for instance, even if mining were done by one single entity, it couldn't censor any transaction, because there's no way to know which one to censor. In Monero, only the payer and the payee know the transaction. You can't sensor "an address".

Although the Zcash-like zk-snarks/starks hypothetically can be structured to eliminate the vulnerability, there’s nothing stopping @dinofelis’s hypothetical future world government from requiring an auditing key exclusively for the said world government which the world government can then use to enforce said censorship.

EDIT: C.f. also my comments about proof-of-stake in the context of Ethereum’s failed scaling research.

$0.00

smooth (70) · 6 years ago (edited)

Can you name any such “reasonably-decentralized” proof-of-stake system or are you only thinking of proof-of-work variants

I'm not aware of any (confidently) reasonably decentralized proof of stake systems, however the non-delegated varieties are at least somewhat more decentralized since they lack a by-design centralization feature (for better or worse).

To claim DPoS is decentralized when one stakeholder is known to control 35% (i.e. far more than 19% vote received by the highest voted witness) of the of the voting stake is quite absurd. In other cases it might be unproven or unprovable but is at least less absurd on its face.

$0.00

mikefromtheuk (56) · 6 years ago

Can you address the rumours about you doing a deal with Samsung?

Posted using Partiko Android

$0.00

maikelblogo (49) · 6 years ago

...and how much will he rise up the cryptocurrency after the untrust rised due their implementation:

-Resource Credits: Huge limitation to post articles if you don't buy Steem Powers to

SMT: Let's see how much will go after the release date.
Account Credits: Buying account for 3 Steem and officializing the bot develpment. Bittersweet.
Hivemind: I don't know how much works making changes on the kilobytes on RAM for a better experience, but after the Resource Credits limitations, seems useless.

Better do things to improve those changes instead be proud of get made it.

$0.00

tytran (54) · 6 years ago

Will you create a Steem account Faucet to help use steemic inc's RC mana to help create more than a few hundred accounts a day? You seem to have the credits on @steem and @steemit @ned etc to actually make thousands of accounts per day

$0.00

ivanstrength (58) · 6 years ago

Why wasn't rocksdb finished last year when it was clear that expensive servers was going to be an issue. You've done some good work, but deciding to push back rocksdb until the ship is nearly sinking shows you lack common engineering sense.

$0.00

ned (69) · 6 years ago

Last year RocksDB was scheduled behind SMTs. Different factors including time and relative costs.

$0.24

3 votes

shepz1 (71) · 6 years ago (edited)

Costs, how much you taken out of here by the back door, want the account details, you know I have them!

We could start there, account creation date 31st March 2016 then work our way to freedom eh?

$0.03