Quote from: jwinterm on July 20, 2016, 04:29:44 AM

Quote from: CoinHoarder on July 19, 2016, 11:08:50 PM

Quote from: lethos3 on July 19, 2016, 11:02:22 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on July 19, 2016, 10:04:37 PM

There sure are a lot of big names participating in this...investment scenario. Anything for a buck. Right fellas?

Quote from: criptix on July 19, 2016, 11:48:00 AM

Wow respect, i see some people who usually stand on morale high ground here defending and shilling for such a scam mining.... wtf is going on here.

I'm as perplexed, trust no one.

soon this pyramid will collapse and everyone will look silly.

I notice none of you "holier than thou" types were able to provide a rebuttal to my post:

Quote from: CoinHoarder on July 19, 2016, 02:45:38 PM

Morals are subjective. They are derived from religion and one's upbringing, and everyone forms their own version of morals as they experience life.

To some a "sneaky mine" is immoral. Others may liken it to starting a business, and equate it to the developers/organizers of a start up obtaining equity in their project. Are all start ups and corporations immoral? Is capitalism immoral? That is subjective...

To some 12% annual inflation is an unsustainable pyramid scheme. Others may liken it as a good way to gain a huge userbase quickly, then leverage that userbase in the form of profitable features that are yet to be implemented. Can a business not change its business plan, or never expand into other markets? To judge something based on exactly how it exists today instead of where it is headed in the future may be a mistake.

To some extent, this is true, but there are some universal moral standards. Which society condones lying? Where is that accepted moral behavior? In my opinion Steem was born of lies and perpetuates them today. Whether you want to call it a sneaky mine, instamine, premine, fast mine, or whatever, Steem loudly proclaimed in their three or four announce threads, "Fair launch! No premine, instamine, or fast mine!", when of course nothing could be further from the truth - the founders mined 80% of the coins generated during the short PoW phase by their own admission.

They perpetuate the lie by advertising, "Welcome to Steemit, decentralized and incentivized social media.", and generally plastering the word 'decentralized' wherever they possibly can. Of course it's not decentralized, the founders just mined 80% of the mineable coins, making themselves able to elect the vast majority of delegates in the DPoS validation scheme, not too mention wield the vast majority of the influence about who gets paid out and how much. Steem is decentralized like Turkey is a democracy.

Ultimately I think this dishonesty will contribute to the failure of this venture, in conjunction with an overly complex system of tokens and a failure to generate enough users to keep the bubble from deflating, but I'm sure the founders and very early adopters will walk away with a nice stash of BTC. C'est la vie.

Apparently all the activity and content goes on the blockchain, so if the blockchain is decentralized then anyone can create a user client for interacting with the blockchain, thus bypassing Steemit.com.

However, with apparently 80 - 90% of the tokens held by the few insiders who were in on the stealthmine, then a few individuals control the blockchain because with DPoS then stake can vote to change anything, including even a hard fork. So thus the authorities can go to these individuals and force them to censor content, sue them for hosting illegal content, etc.. I think Dan, Ned, smooth, etc have potentially placed themselves in legal jeopardy because of the nature of a DPoS blockchain.

I understand the plan is to distribute much of that 80% out to the new signups. But that is 57 million Steem tokens at 10 tokens per signup, so they need 5.7 million signups. Actually the might be possible. So do we trust them to award the Steem to new signups and how do we prevent Sybil attacks on signups? My gf signed up twice with her two Facebook accounts (but only one of her Steem accounts can be logged into, she only signed up 2X because of a bug in Steem or Steemit). The signup is the Sybil attack vulnerability. Earning on blog posts can't be Sybil attacked.

Note I also hold two Facebook accounts, but I only signed up once for Steem.

Without a premine, you can't incentivize new signups. Well you can by paying for the blog posts, but is the initial SP for signup may be one of the factors that causes people to join or are they joining for the big payouts for blogs regardless of the 10 SP signup bonus?

Would not paying a signup bonus work just as well?

Feedback to me please. As I am planning to call Ned Scott. Maybe they can be reasoned with.

I'd rather join them than fight them, assuming they are reasonable. I'll need to get verbal with the personalities and see if there is chemistry.

We as a community need to come together. I can't do all that work by myself. Who out there wants to go create this and do it more correctly? Raise your hand.

Dan has apparently been hard-headed in the past, but perhaps he is not entirely the one in control now and/or perhaps he is willing to relinquish some control. That is not to say Dan isn't a valuable asset. He can be if he is willing to allow issues to be decided by the community's wisdom.

Political shit is difficult. Vested interests and fighting I really hate loosing my time on that. But also we need to accomplish something big.