As ned stated (not mentioning him to avoid troubling him too much), those are only hypothetical tokens. They were invented just to show what SMT's would be capable of doing. If however they are added to Steemit, this wouldn't be bad for the Steem blockchain but just for Steemit ! Other Steem apps would have their own or no SMT's and those wouldn't have anything to do with the GPT's. What you are scared of is one of the reasons why SMT's will be so good in my opinion. Some websites don't want to be decentralized and want to be able to filter content (by quality, political view...), with SMT's they will be able to do so. This doesn't mean that all websites will do the same ! Ultimately the power will be in our hands as users to pick our platforms, it will be our fault if we decide to pick a centralized one. Content posted on the blockchain will still act the same as it does now (with trending, hot, created, vote weight...). Just think of SMT's as a layer added on top of the posts generated by a specific app to make it more convenient for the app to get what it needs (trending by vote count instead of post value for example).
That's what I think I've understood from everything that's been said about SMT's so far. Hopefully it's correct because that would be amazing !
thanks for your comments. lemme just clarify a few things.
the future you described is awesome. i'll love it, and certainly not be afraid of it.
but it will only come under certain conditions. that i'm very afraid.
you can't have websites competing each other like that when GPT is the only dominant SMT. yes you can have 1000s and 1000s of different dapps/websites/bots/etc on top of the steem blockchain, each having their own SMTs, but the sheer number is not an issue at all. it's whether an SMT can create a rewards pool or not.
GPT will do it. nobody doubts that. @ned even hinted that it could be used as a metric for quality posts. people will trade it. now you need someone who can match that rewards pool otherwise it's not a competition. it's gotta be someone who has enough followers and influence that his/her SMT will match the total marketcap (most tokens won't even have a marketcap). but nobody in this community is bigger than @ned.
it's why i keep saying you need a bigger player entering with a new SMT. it's the only way to ensure that steem will be an ecosystem for all sorts of SMTs. if not, GPT will be the dominant one. it's a token verified by steemit inc according to their own behavioral guidelines.
thanks. we need many tokens (SMTs). we need several big players coming in and creating a bunch of new reward pools. we might even need strong governance. but that governance must not be entirely dependent on @ned or steemit inc. it must be decentralized enough so that the community has the ability to act on its own behalf, rather than relying on a single entity to simply do the right thing.
thanks @evananisa. i'd have to assume the first big player to create a new SMT, to start creating a rewards pool that doesn't need to be nurtured by steemit inc itself, is absolutely crucial for its own survival as a social platform. the question is who is @ned talking to?
😄 on second thought, maybe you could make one. now we start worshiping a bunch of 0s and 1s. a digital god that nobody can dispute. doesn't seem so bad actually.. or are we in a terminator movie.
Great idea... meeting together and the digital god concept... true but there is more...
I see the code everywhere
I worked in a molecular genetics research lab for a year after graduation. The code is totally present. Although we can manipulate it and reproduce it we cannot create it because it is here already.
yea lemme know on discord if you have time. and wow i didn't know you did research on that. i have no idea what they do over there. but once we start creating something in our own image, that'd be interesting. and scary.
Esta aceptable la propuesta, ya sea de parte de los mayores(arriba) observar buen contenido y aplicar para mejorar...Muy buen post e interesante, saludos amigo
steemit clearly has a lot of room for improvement. only death awaits if they fail to adjust and make the right changes. i hope they facilitate community growth in a way that's not too centralized.
Gracias amigo @roundbeargames por ayudarnos a entender como funciona el Blockchain Database de Steemit. Una pregunta la censura seria por parte de Steemit o de parte del Blockchain
it's good if a 'good person' could be defined by the community. a single entity like steemit inc or some smartest person in the world can't do it alone. shouldn't do it alone 😌
My take away was that checks would be made against such things as self voting, etc.. Any tweeking that will counter abuse is worth a try in my estimation.
thanks. self voting is bad? i've been self voting a lot 😐
anyways it's pretty clear bidbots are bad. so are isis beheading videos. i probably won't question anything around those issues even if they're included in the guidelines.
what if i'm a homophobe? or accused of? i certainly don't support murder, genocide, torture, and sexslaves, but i could be a kim jung un supporter. what if i support a president that @ned really really hates?
i just don't think it's possible for any human being or an organization to come up with a guideline that clearly defines what a 'good person' is. all such attempts have failed (quite miserably). can god do it? we have disagreements on that too.
btw i'm just playing the devil's advocate. there's a few things 99% of us wish would disappear from steemit. but there's a lot more grey area that i'm concerned with and steemit inc alone won't be able to deal with it.
If you, or a group that you are a part of, feel thwarted by STINC Policy, then there is nothing stopping such a group from handling the input and delivery of content on the blockchain differently as the code is open source and the database is distributed. Imagine Busy Darknet 2.0. 😎
P.S. Perhaps better than Good Person would be Community Exceptable Behavior. Less judgemental and allows evolution over time.
P.P.S Self voting was removed a few forks ago and then returned. Rumour is that it is removed in the next fork again.
thanks for pointing that out, but guidelines have nothing to do with code. they can't define spam or other 'bad code' in meaningful detail. they're general terms that are subjective to interpretation. it's why we don't trust governments and banks.
if we have a bunch of individuals going around finding 'bad actors', they'd have different results. but yes they'd overlap on some of the most obvious ones. but the community's already kinda doing that. steemit inc should be included as one of those individuals. but it shouldn't be the big boss telling us what a 'good person' is.
As ned stated (not mentioning him to avoid troubling him too much), those are only hypothetical tokens. They were invented just to show what SMT's would be capable of doing. If however they are added to Steemit, this wouldn't be bad for the Steem blockchain but just for Steemit ! Other Steem apps would have their own or no SMT's and those wouldn't have anything to do with the GPT's. What you are scared of is one of the reasons why SMT's will be so good in my opinion. Some websites don't want to be decentralized and want to be able to filter content (by quality, political view...), with SMT's they will be able to do so. This doesn't mean that all websites will do the same ! Ultimately the power will be in our hands as users to pick our platforms, it will be our fault if we decide to pick a centralized one. Content posted on the blockchain will still act the same as it does now (with trending, hot, created, vote weight...). Just think of SMT's as a layer added on top of the posts generated by a specific app to make it more convenient for the app to get what it needs (trending by vote count instead of post value for example).
That's what I think I've understood from everything that's been said about SMT's so far. Hopefully it's correct because that would be amazing !
thanks for your comments. lemme just clarify a few things.
the future you described is awesome. i'll love it, and certainly not be afraid of it.
but it will only come under certain conditions. that i'm very afraid.
you can't have websites competing each other like that when GPT is the only dominant SMT. yes you can have 1000s and 1000s of different dapps/websites/bots/etc on top of the steem blockchain, each having their own SMTs, but the sheer number is not an issue at all. it's whether an SMT can create a rewards pool or not.
GPT will do it. nobody doubts that. @ned even hinted that it could be used as a metric for quality posts. people will trade it. now you need someone who can match that rewards pool otherwise it's not a competition. it's gotta be someone who has enough followers and influence that his/her SMT will match the total marketcap (most tokens won't even have a marketcap). but nobody in this community is bigger than @ned.
it's why i keep saying you need a bigger player entering with a new SMT. it's the only way to ensure that steem will be an ecosystem for all sorts of SMTs. if not, GPT will be the dominant one. it's a token verified by steemit inc according to their own behavioral guidelines.
This is great way to earn more rewards and token is needed.
I like your contribution and support you dear.
You are really good person.
thanks. we need many tokens (SMTs). we need several big players coming in and creating a bunch of new reward pools. we might even need strong governance. but that governance must not be entirely dependent on @ned or steemit inc. it must be decentralized enough so that the community has the ability to act on its own behalf, rather than relying on a single entity to simply do the right thing.
such a very good offer my friend @roundbeargames
thanks @evananisa. i'd have to assume the first big player to create a new SMT, to start creating a rewards pool that doesn't need to be nurtured by steemit inc itself, is absolutely crucial for its own survival as a social platform. the question is who is @ned talking to?
This is great @roundbeargames and shows how much you thought about both sides. It seems hypothetical but I can see it happening.
I just hope it doesn't turn into the soup nazi bot from Seinfeld.
😄 on second thought, maybe you could make one. now we start worshiping a bunch of 0s and 1s. a digital god that nobody can dispute. doesn't seem so bad actually.. or are we in a terminator movie.
anyways should we meet next week?
Great idea... meeting together and the digital god concept... true but there is more...
I see the code everywhere
I worked in a molecular genetics research lab for a year after graduation. The code is totally present. Although we can manipulate it and reproduce it we cannot create it because it is here already.
yea lemme know on discord if you have time. and wow i didn't know you did research on that. i have no idea what they do over there. but once we start creating something in our own image, that'd be interesting. and scary.
Esta aceptable la propuesta, ya sea de parte de los mayores(arriba) observar buen contenido y aplicar para mejorar...Muy buen post e interesante, saludos amigo
steemit clearly has a lot of room for improvement. only death awaits if they fail to adjust and make the right changes. i hope they facilitate community growth in a way that's not too centralized.
Gracias amigo @roundbeargames por ayudarnos a entender como funciona el Blockchain Database de Steemit. Una pregunta la censura seria por parte de Steemit o de parte del Blockchain
thanks @franciscana23. let's hope steem goes to the moon. you should do some googling yourself because i'm guessing a lot here 😃
That we hope all friend, that Steem reaches the moon and if it is possible much futher @roundbeargames
oh yes. i won't go higher than steem but hopefully watch it take off and benefit me in some ways 😃
@roundbeargames Your concerns are understandable,This offer seems to me to be very good. I always support you.@upvoted & @resteemed.
thanks for the resteem! but i'm also concerned about your steemit page because you want your own content, rather than simple links.
This offer seems to me to be very good to know whom they are the good persons regards.
it's good if a 'good person' could be defined by the community. a single entity like steemit inc or some smartest person in the world can't do it alone. shouldn't do it alone 😌
Your concerns are understandable, @roundbeargames.
My take away was that checks would be made against such things as self voting, etc.. Any tweeking that will counter abuse is worth a try in my estimation.
thanks. self voting is bad? i've been self voting a lot 😐
anyways it's pretty clear bidbots are bad. so are isis beheading videos. i probably won't question anything around those issues even if they're included in the guidelines.
what if i'm a homophobe? or accused of? i certainly don't support murder, genocide, torture, and sexslaves, but i could be a kim jung un supporter. what if i support a president that @ned really really hates?
i just don't think it's possible for any human being or an organization to come up with a guideline that clearly defines what a 'good person' is. all such attempts have failed (quite miserably). can god do it? we have disagreements on that too.
btw i'm just playing the devil's advocate. there's a few things 99% of us wish would disappear from steemit. but there's a lot more grey area that i'm concerned with and steemit inc alone won't be able to deal with it.
If you, or a group that you are a part of, feel thwarted by STINC Policy, then there is nothing stopping such a group from handling the input and delivery of content on the blockchain differently as the code is open source and the database is distributed. Imagine Busy Darknet 2.0. 😎
P.S. Perhaps better than Good Person would be Community Exceptable Behavior. Less judgemental and allows evolution over time.
P.P.S Self voting was removed a few forks ago and then returned. Rumour is that it is removed in the next fork again.
thanks for pointing that out, but guidelines have nothing to do with code. they can't define spam or other 'bad code' in meaningful detail. they're general terms that are subjective to interpretation. it's why we don't trust governments and banks.
if we have a bunch of individuals going around finding 'bad actors', they'd have different results. but yes they'd overlap on some of the most obvious ones. but the community's already kinda doing that. steemit inc should be included as one of those individuals. but it shouldn't be the big boss telling us what a 'good person' is.
Hopefully it will be community driven with community concensus as to what is exceptable.
yup let the community do it 👍
Wow Really amazing post my dear friend..Outstanding post..
thanks @niharikalove. you're an outstanding friend. much appreciated.