Well known freelance writers for news sites are most people?

You are right!!!

Please read the following:



I would like to buy vested accounts. 1M+ Vests per account, minimum. I will buy much larger accounts too.

Escrow with SebastianJu or Kushed.

That's old news. July 15. The hack was contained and any affected party was compensated by the steemit company. There is plenty to fud here but you chose just about the lamest topic.

Distro is interesting, but exchanges are going to get all the coins.

I want to buy vested accounts. 1M+ Vests per account, minimum.

Yes, it is right. I am looking to buy vested accounts with 30M+ VESTS (8,000 Steem power or more per account).

I am looking to buy not sell.

WTB Vested accounts. 30M+ Vests. Serious inquiries only.

1. They want more content than an emonji.
2. The original post about AMP could be seen as spam. If the poster had outlined the similarities and differences between the two projects, it probably would not have been deleted.

The question is who reported it because they won't delete anything that isn't reported.

I have a couple of questions.

Here's what I understand.


Here the STEEM in the vesting fund (total_vesting_shares) is 4826044.000 STEEM, and the total supply (current_supply) is 5522844.000 STEEM

This ratio is 0.874, or 87.4%. It will gradually drift to 90% if no one buys new shares.

First Questions: How is this drift calculated? What is the formula for the update cycle?

As new STEEM is added to the money supply, the amount of STEEM in the vesting fund will increase accordingly.

Second Question: How do you calculate the value of your vests in terms of STEEM?

My guess:

If you want to see what your vests are worth, valued in STEEM at, you calculate:

    total_vesting_fund_steem * your_vesting_shares / total_vesting_shares

(I fixed this formula in edit.)

I have some other questions.

(1) How many witnesses can each vest vote for?
(2) Is it impossible for someone to dilute your vests? I think not because total_vesting_shares will never grow faster than current_supply. Correct?

Where did I lie? I think I missed it. I helped several selflessly earlier by the way, and did so when there was nothing in it for me except added mining competition.

Do not start multiple instances with the same key, either on the same machine or different machines.

You can have as many threads as you want on a single instance with the same key.

The signature nonce is constructed by the signing key and the thread number. Different instances will have the same thread numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.)

Your best bet is for each steemd you run, you need to have a different key. If in doubt make a different key.

I haven't looked to see if the devs fixed this yet.

About me and my credentials for being a witness:

I have been following crypto for about 2.5 years now and it was only a few short months after my first purchase of BTC before I started getting involved on the development side. Lately, I have been working with the Eclipse dev team as a programmer. To clarify things, we have several devs. I am the lead (overly-outspoken) programmer. We also have an administrative dev and a cryptography expert. We are all "equals", leading different parts of the project.

I have expertise in a enough programming languages not to bother mentioning them all. One language I will mention is C++ because so much of crypto is written in it. I've studied cryptocurrency code so much that I can read through it like a newspaper and can spot logic bugs without even running the code. I have written a lot of cryptocurrency code for many projects.

I have many years of experience in system administration, setting up long running networks both as a consultant and salaried professional.

If I run a witness, I will do so using a top-tier cloud platform like google, amazon, or azure. I have registered a few aliases on the STEEM platform, some of which may not be flattering to steem. Again, that was all a "masquerade". At least we know these names will be in friendly hands.

I prefer my witness account to be "steemed" if I am selected. I also have steemroller and steemer, and many other potentially valuable aliases.

In fairness, I could have put a lot of hashes on this coin, but I stayed out of the way so the devs could get more of a development fund. I have been putting everything into vests, even at the low rates we have been getting now. I was probably one of the first people with vests after relaunch.

I'm excited to see where this project will go. I have been recruiting new participants behind the scenes, and even helped a few people here both on the board and privately.

Even if I didn't have a stake in this project, I'd be enthusiastic about its progress as the devs' goal is one of the well known killer dapps that will serve a useful purpose to society.

I'm interested in being a witness as well, but maybe the only way I can prove my support for this coin is that I have been mining it to a bunch of aliases for a few days. I have steemroller and stanleysteemer. I also have a bunch of coin names including ethereum, ripple, namecoin, and litecoin. I also have been mining a few ticker symbols like btc, eth, and bts. I can prove ownership of all these aliases and that they were created before the devs mentioned slots for witnesses.

I like a lot of things about bitshares, especially pegged currencies, so I'm excited about a bitshares-based coin. One thing I dislike is the potential for abuse with delegated PoS, although the bitshares model seems to address most of my concerns.

As my backposts indicate, I am especially displeased with the lisk delegated PoS model, where the initial distribution is based on an ICO, and each stakeholder can vote multiple times with their stake.

STEEM is interesting because it dispenses with PoS altogether, but not on the back of stakeholders. When I saw this idea of delegated PoW, I realized its importance and started mining.

I know my post history here at bitcointalk is somewhat limited, but I am mostly a lurker, except when I feel like I have something to say. You can see my account is fairly old, so I have been around long enough to know when something special pops up.

#2 is altruism and will not be a motivation. #1 is the right answer.




Usernames are not worth more than real identities. That's why the LISK development team used their real identities for this ICO.

Real identity is more legitimate than a user name, but it is going to exclude a lot of people and undermine the robustness of the system.

How is anyone going to get votes? What's in it for the voters? Is this a popularity contest?

Voters are going to vote to get something out of it. So then they all join a pool (who might steal a little weight from each one). Then how will this be decentralized?

This whole system is a recipe for centralization at every turn. First you exclude entire countries by imposing unreasonable liabilities on signatories, then you must join a pool to make it worth your time to vote and even then there is no guarantee that you will get representation for your vote.

In the end, people will vote for Donald Trump because he is a well funded showman, and Chase bank because they have the lawyers to combat the agencies.

You have completely ignored the exposure of signatories to liability by making them reveal their identities.

Let me get this straight. Fairness will be ensured by linking a specific identity to the ability to sign a distributed ledger.

This is not a good idea. Several countries are beginning to enact serious legislation and take serious interest in distributed ledgers. In Russia, for example, they will send someone to prison simply for using it. Who knows what will happen to a signatory.

In the US, it has been suggested that current laws make signatories liable for filings with the SEC, CFTC, and likely any other agency that unilaterally declares its own jurisdiction.

Fairness must come from game theory, not by exposing the signatories to massive liability. The latter is a way to ensure the absence of fairness.

If game theory means that someone may control a delegate indefinitely, I don't see how that's a problem.

By the way, "a lot more legitimacy" is a relative statement.

In the end, online identities are easy to fake and are essentially meaningless.

Okay, this is missing from the handbook. It needs to be in there. I'm not completely convinced of the wisdom of this system yet, but I fully concede that tying the voting mechanism to real-world input adds a lot more legitimacy to this type of process.