If exchanges can do what they want with other people's Steem, then what stops them from doing whatever they want with customer's Bitcoin or Ethereum or Litecoin, etc, etc?
Justin can sell HIS steem to the exchanges to fulfill the exchanges withdrawal requirements.
Not steems fault.
Not steems problem, other than the threat of this bogus steem stake.
But Im sure the pressure the clients put on the exchanges will force them to make a move.
What that move is I cant say.
But the more everyone buys up the available steem from the market the Stronger steems hand is, our hand is.
I have openly on multiple occasions called Marky a dick. Ive trolled him for things i considered he was dishonest about and trolled him in response to his trolling. I called him out on multiple occasions as recent as a week ago.
BUT there has not been a single time he downvoted me or tried to retaliate for my words.
The Steem "abuse fighting" community does not abuse downvotes to retaliate to anyone. Please consider my example.
We actually also try to counter abusive downvotes when a post or comment is made invisible.
You don't see it because we do it using a trail. It's something similar to how @smartmarket works. And that, we work with @freezepeach and other larger stakeholders to soften the blow.
I can attest to this is as well. I've been a bit rough around the edges towards Marky before and he has never sought any form of petty retaliation or anything of the sort..
I downvoted Justin Sun's "witness voting policy" and several other things of his because I thought he was a dick who is messing with our blockchain and pissing me off.
I don't do that often, but I consider the downvote to be a vital part of the free expression that we enjoy here on Steem.
No I am not, but I know people downvote for many reasons, mine are specifically abuse or harassment only. I have no control or influence how people use their stake, only how I use mine.
People are free to use their stake as they please, that's what Steem power is, you have a set amount of influence to decide how the reward pool can be used.
I don't agree with flagging over "vegan wars" (Not even sure what that is, I assume it is anti-vegan or the opposite).
I can assure you I don't downvote for petty things like that, but I have no influence on other people's stake.
"People are free to use their stake as they please" lol
you created the Black list to do the exact opposite!
Hey " Marty" we see what your doing. Your game is up!
"The commuity" is not you and your whales and voting bots!
I have no idea why people downvote, usually the person complaining is not telling the whole story. I can't figure out every downvote (which there are a lot of) who is right or wrong. It would be an absolute nightmare to police every downvote.
I am not any authority figure or moderator, I am just another user like you and everyone else using my stake as I feel benefits the platform as a whole and aligns with my interests.
You are a de facto authority figure and or moderator, you manage community blacklists and have the power to deny rewards and hide all posts of accounts you personally disprove of.
You even use that (copyrighted footage) movie clip of THOR wielding "the ban-hammer".
Only a de facto mod has the power to influence view-ability of posts and comments on OTHER PEOPLE'S blogs.
I am just a large stake holder willing to sacrifice my time and stake to make the rewards more balanced. Nothing more nothing less.
You even use that (copyrighted footage) movie clip of THOR wielding "the ban-hammer".
You should look into and understand Fair Use Doctrine
Only a de facto mod has the power to influence view-ability of posts and comments on OTHER PEOPLE'S blogs.
Again, I am not a mod, I am just a stake holder that wasted thousands of hours of my person time to help balance rewards only to be shit on by trolls and spammers.
In reference to (1:08:44) we should give people "moderator rights" to their own personal blogs. We should give individuals the same rights as the "moderated tag admins". That way, people could mute (or screen) comments on their own blogs and block individuals from commenting (or opt-into blacklists) on their own blogs.
It would also be nice to be able to opt-into "mute" blacklists for people who don't want to see "trash" (it could mirror the nsfw toggle feature).
We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses.
Multiple "mute" blacklists that can be toggled off and on (like the nsfw toggle) would seem to fix both the "spammy" problem and diverting the reward-pool to witnesses and implementing a quick-tipping-system would solve the "reward-pool-self-voting-11%-interest-farming" problem.
It would also be nice to be able to quick-tip posts older than seven days!!
I agree completely with your proposals up until this one:
"We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses."
That kills the Steem.
Regardless, it no longer matters IMHO, as Steem has been reduced to possession by Tron in fact. Steem is kill atm.
If Tron and the exchanges execute code that prevents their exercise of governance, and code that prevents that same ability of any other stakeholder to undertake the Sybil Attack that has been successfully executed presently on Steem, then we may be able to bring it back to life.
How likely do you think that is?
When that has been accomplished, the proposals you suggest may be relevant. Currently they're proposals regarding a dead chain. Justin can just do whatever he wants with Steem today.
Oh ok. I'm sorry, I've been confused by the Tron Steem Drama. I'm trying to understand the details. For example, I'm guessing that crypto exchange websites have Steemit accounts. I'm not totally sure how it all works, but I am guessing that these Steemit accounts work as the middle man between their exchanges and the Steem blockchain. I have sent some Steem to Poloniex and Bittrex through their Steem accounts.
So, based on what I know, based on what I've experienced, it seems that these accounts have access to Steem on their exchanges and access to the Steem blockchain. So, I believe that they took some Steem from some exchanges that they had access to and powered up their SP on their Steem accounts to then vote for witnesses.
I believe Tron Overlord Justin Sun was upset as he really wanted to help those exchanges power down as fast as possible so that they could return Steem back to the random people they borrowed or stole from. I believe that some of those people did not know that the exchanges were doing this and that Roy Liu and Justin and Tron really wanted to rush things along to make sure that nobody notices. But then if they power down, then they can't continue to vote with the same voting power. And I am guessing that people can try to vote back in the previous witnesses back into the top twenty or top thirty spot as they did to an extent last week.
I feel like Tron is in a sticky situation. I don't know what I would do in their situation. Do you keep the SP so you can continue voting or do you return the Steem to the people and admit to the actions that they took. Well, either way, they did what they did.
There are plenty of sites where you can blog. Steem creates a new paradigm, where you don't just provide information to your peers, but your peers can provide Steem to you for doing so. This elevates society, and our speech, our communications to each other, to the same socioeconomic level as working for wages, or investing in commercial undertakings.
Steem isn't just blogging for rewards. It's a new socioeconomic paradigm enables peers to create mutual economic support, outside of legacy financial mechanisms captive to predatory institutions and persons, and replaces hierarchical neofeudalism. Steem replaces overlords and serfs with peers and decentralization by it's blogging for rewards mechanism.
If it's done right, it's a model that can be a vector for change more powerful than we commonly imagine. Eliminating author rewards eliminates that paradigm changing potential.
Go ahead and eliminate curation rewards. They're only parasitic. Steem is far from perfect, but like a lungfish clumsily flopping about in the muck catching bugs out of water, brings new possibilities to the world.
What I'm proposing is a mute blacklist that users can opt-into and or opt-out of.
The current blacklist is basically a mechanism that lets some unspecified party or parties pick and choose which accounts I can see and which accounts I cannot see for capricious and opaque "reasons".
I currently have no choice to opt-out.
I can opt-into and opt-out of the "nsfw" mute blacklist, I'd like to have the same choice regarding any other blacklist that's imposed on my account.
The nsfw is just a tag people use to identify their posts as being not safe for work. You don't see it because UIs handle this tag specially. I have never seen it referred to as a 'blacklist'.
If I want to no longer see profanity, we could tell @SteemPeak developers that it would be good to have a profanity tag that users could put on their posts. This is the honors system and it's a good idea. The poster has to use the tag and you count on them. If they don't do it, then what?
Blacklists are by their nature not something members of the said list opt into. It's for the maintainers of the steem sites that opt in to the black lists. This is the UI level. Talk to the maintainers of the UIs to no longer subscribe to these lists or appeal to the list maintainers. As a third option you can support a competing Steem site. The users that support my web-site will be the whales of that site. Those that do can maintain the black lists or make sure blacklists are opt-in only.
Take a look at https://www.steemfiles.com. It uses steem for logging in and shows you a price ticker. I could add features like browsing articles and posting, and the investors will never see their posts hidden on steemfiles.com. I could setup an investment scheme where twenty people invest 100 SBD and they get a site on the Steem blockchain that ignores flags. Rewards are on the blockchain level though so there is nothing I can do about that.
This is a choice the maintainers of steemit.com, steempeak.com, busy.org, the esteem App, or 3speak, steemfiles.com make. There is nothing you or I can do about that.
However, you can make it your choice by changing you UI that doesn't subscribe to the blacklist you are on. If 3speak subscribes to a black list you are on, you can decide to not use 3speak.
Definitions are definitions though: I think the majority's definition 'blacklist' is:
A list of people who are prevented from doing or using something.
So with that out of the way. I like your reference to the 'nsfw' tag. Now this is a tag. There is another tag for worthless posts for experimenting. It's called spam. I used to write software that would talk to RPC nodes and software could write posts to the blockchain. The software would post a message that said 'test' and one of the tags was 'spam.' So, I wasn't flagged.
I think you could invent a new tag for your reasons they flagged you. Something that describes why it gets flagged and then try to get curators to not flag posts with that tag for that reason.
Black-lists are maintained by those who curate them and there is nothing we can do. I do think some of my posts are being unfairly flagged at times, so I can relate.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply.
If comments are viewable by default and I "mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) blacklist.
If comments are hidden by default and I "un-mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) whitelist.
I should be able to blacklist and whitelist MY OWN VIEWING OPTIONS.
I should NOT be able to blacklist and whitelist EVERYONE'S VIEWING OPTIONS.
Perhaps low rep users could voluntarily add #unpopular or #misunderstood or #censorship to all their posts and comments. I wasn't aware of the #spam tag, that seems like a reasonable model.
Do you know how the current blacklists are created and maintained? Are they democratic or are they dictatorial?
Are certain accounts whitelisted (immune) from stemcleaners and buldawhale and cheetabot?
Yes after commenting I read @stpthemarkymark post. I watched the interview videos with you. I learned you had organized several APIs for existing lists and the consequences of eliminating downvoting. You're staying on my witness list unless you get to the top three in which case, for strategy, I might remove to vote for another witness that needs it more.
Seems rather embarassing for a rich Chinese guy to have to go and beg the Korean community for witness votes. Does he take them for gullible fools?
He should just buy steem off the exchanges and vote for himself ... oh wait, that steem is kind of locked up right now.
listened to it and this was how i feeled
Hey Marty.
Heeeeeey
Marty Marky, I listened to that 3 hour video. You did a good job as you guys were talking to Roy Liu.
It was Marty, Matty, and Marky
Throughout all of my stay on steem. I want you and @berniesanders to know that you have both provided some of the best content on this platform.
Hold the line on the powerdown.
They will be FORCED TO BUY STEEM from the market!
Price goes up!
The fight with the exchange is NOT a fight with Justin.
It's a fight with the exchange and if the exchange has a problem with our PUBLIC POLICY then lets hear what they have to say.
Go buy some steem from the market.
Not my problem.
Price goes up..!
If exchanges can do what they want with other people's Steem, then what stops them from doing whatever they want with customer's Bitcoin or Ethereum or Litecoin, etc, etc?
Exactly, we need to hold the line and say No More!
Justin can sell HIS steem to the exchanges to fulfill the exchanges withdrawal requirements.
Not steems fault.
Not steems problem, other than the threat of this bogus steem stake.
But Im sure the pressure the clients put on the exchanges will force them to make a move.
What that move is I cant say.
But the more everyone buys up the available steem from the market the Stronger steems hand is, our hand is.
And I joke that @elipowell can't find the
power upbutton.Turns out, exchanges can't find the
power downbutton.lol
In situations like this... im glad youre such a dick. ;)
To anyone reading this...
I have openly on multiple occasions called Marky a dick. Ive trolled him for things i considered he was dishonest about and trolled him in response to his trolling. I called him out on multiple occasions as recent as a week ago.
BUT there has not been a single time he downvoted me or tried to retaliate for my words.
The Steem "abuse fighting" community does not abuse downvotes to retaliate to anyone. Please consider my example.
@glory7, @virus707, @dobartim, @slowwalker
We actually also try to counter abusive downvotes when a post or comment is made invisible.
You don't see it because we do it using a trail. It's something similar to how @smartmarket works. And that, we work with @freezepeach and other larger stakeholders to soften the blow.
All you need to do is ask.
I can attest to this is as well. I've been a bit rough around the edges towards Marky before and he has never sought any form of petty retaliation or anything of the sort..
Amen
That's because u r kin to them. same manslaughterers' DNA
Are you aware that people have been downvoted because they made a post about "I tried a vegan diet and it made me sick"?
This doesn't seem to qualify as "plagiarism, copy-pasta, low effort posting, spam, bid-botting or personal attacks".
I downvoted Justin Sun's "witness voting policy" and several other things of his because I thought he was a dick who is messing with our blockchain and pissing me off.
I don't do that often, but I consider the downvote to be a vital part of the free expression that we enjoy here on Steem.
What real-world action would you consider a "downvote" equivalent?
Sticking my tongue out at him, or making some other rude gesture.
Only if that knocks money-tokens out of their hand and makes them silent and or invisible.
In my case, it costs them 1¢ and what they do next is their business.
No I am not, but I know people downvote for many reasons, mine are specifically abuse or harassment only. I have no control or influence how people use their stake, only how I use mine.
You do have "control or influence" by punishing people for what you consider "inappropriate behavior".
That's your entire argument in favor of downvoting.
Downvoting gives you "control and influence".
Wouldn't unjustified downvotes (like "vegan wars") qualify as "personal attacks" and or "harassment"?
Would you consider downvoting unjustified downvoters?
People are free to use their stake as they please, that's what Steem power is, you have a set amount of influence to decide how the reward pool can be used.
I don't agree with flagging over "vegan wars" (Not even sure what that is, I assume it is anti-vegan or the opposite).
I can assure you I don't downvote for petty things like that, but I have no influence on other people's stake.
"People are free to use their stake as they please" lol
you created the Black list to do the exact opposite!
Hey " Marty" we see what your doing. Your game is up!
"The commuity" is not you and your whales and voting bots!
If you downvoted people for harassing the innocent with their downvotes, that would deter harassment (which you are ostensibly against).
You use your downvotes to punish people who make personal attacks (and that's awesome).
Why not use your downvotes to punish people who make personal attacks (with their downvoting power)?
If you say "people are free to use their stake as they please", aren't self-voters "using their stake as they please"?
Aren't spammers using their resource credits (earned from their steem-power) "using their stake as they please"?
I'm not sure why you would be eager to downvote for one form of harassment but NOT for another form of harassment.
Fantastic.
I have no idea why people downvote, usually the person complaining is not telling the whole story. I can't figure out every downvote (which there are a lot of) who is right or wrong. It would be an absolute nightmare to police every downvote.
I am not any authority figure or moderator, I am just another user like you and everyone else using my stake as I feel benefits the platform as a whole and aligns with my interests.
You are a de facto authority figure and or moderator, you manage community blacklists and have the power to deny rewards and hide all posts of accounts you personally disprove of.
You even use that (copyrighted footage) movie clip of THOR wielding "the ban-hammer".
Only a de facto mod has the power to influence view-ability of posts and comments on OTHER PEOPLE'S blogs.
I am just a large stake holder willing to sacrifice my time and stake to make the rewards more balanced. Nothing more nothing less.
You should look into and understand Fair Use Doctrine
Again, I am not a mod, I am just a stake holder that wasted thousands of hours of my person time to help balance rewards only to be shit on by trolls and spammers.
u manslaughterer @themarkymark have downvoted for no reason.
Only reason is u have ancesors with manslaughter DNA.
Who did I manslaughter?
I hear you and the community agrees with not changing the code to facilitate a few accounts. Did a post on why powering is lowered will literally destroy the economy https://steemit.com/hive-196037/@bitrocker2020/d870hztcc5n
Downvotes are 100% required. Removing any (or one of the only) forms of dissent / discussion is a terrible idea.
Thanks for your efforts during this shitstorm the last few days / weeks.
In reference to (1:08:44) we should give people "moderator rights" to their own personal blogs. We should give individuals the same rights as the "moderated tag admins". That way, people could mute (or screen) comments on their own blogs and block individuals from commenting (or opt-into blacklists) on their own blogs.
It would also be nice to be able to opt-into "mute" blacklists for people who don't want to see "trash" (it could mirror the nsfw toggle feature).
We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses.
Multiple "mute" blacklists that can be toggled off and on (like the nsfw toggle) would seem to fix both the "spammy" problem and diverting the reward-pool to witnesses and implementing a quick-tipping-system would solve the "reward-pool-self-voting-11%-interest-farming" problem.
It would also be nice to be able to quick-tip posts older than seven days!!
I agree completely with your proposals up until this one:
That kills the Steem.
Regardless, it no longer matters IMHO, as Steem has been reduced to possession by Tron in fact. Steem is kill atm.
If Tron and the exchanges execute code that prevents their exercise of governance, and code that prevents that same ability of any other stakeholder to undertake the Sybil Attack that has been successfully executed presently on Steem, then we may be able to bring it back to life.
How likely do you think that is?
When that has been accomplished, the proposals you suggest may be relevant. Currently they're proposals regarding a dead chain. Justin can just do whatever he wants with Steem today.
Justin doesn't control 17 of the top 20 witnesses at the moment, so no changes can be implemented (stalemate).
The exchanges backed off their votes - but remain powered up. They can swing it his way at will. The illusion of decentralization is just an illusion.
@ned had this stake for four years and never assumed control of governance. That doesn't mean he didn't have the stake.
But in order to vote, they have to power down and that appears to take several months to do, to power down.
No. To vote for witness you must be powered up. Powering down removes your ability to cast votes of any kind on Steem
Oh ok. I'm sorry, I've been confused by the Tron Steem Drama. I'm trying to understand the details. For example, I'm guessing that crypto exchange websites have Steemit accounts. I'm not totally sure how it all works, but I am guessing that these Steemit accounts work as the middle man between their exchanges and the Steem blockchain. I have sent some Steem to Poloniex and Bittrex through their Steem accounts.
So, based on what I know, based on what I've experienced, it seems that these accounts have access to Steem on their exchanges and access to the Steem blockchain. So, I believe that they took some Steem from some exchanges that they had access to and powered up their SP on their Steem accounts to then vote for witnesses.
I believe Tron Overlord Justin Sun was upset as he really wanted to help those exchanges power down as fast as possible so that they could return Steem back to the random people they borrowed or stole from. I believe that some of those people did not know that the exchanges were doing this and that Roy Liu and Justin and Tron really wanted to rush things along to make sure that nobody notices. But then if they power down, then they can't continue to vote with the same voting power. And I am guessing that people can try to vote back in the previous witnesses back into the top twenty or top thirty spot as they did to an extent last week.
I feel like Tron is in a sticky situation. I don't know what I would do in their situation. Do you keep the SP so you can continue voting or do you return the Steem to the people and admit to the actions that they took. Well, either way, they did what they did.
"We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses."
Please explain.
There are plenty of sites where you can blog. Steem creates a new paradigm, where you don't just provide information to your peers, but your peers can provide Steem to you for doing so. This elevates society, and our speech, our communications to each other, to the same socioeconomic level as working for wages, or investing in commercial undertakings.
Steem isn't just blogging for rewards. It's a new socioeconomic paradigm enables peers to create mutual economic support, outside of legacy financial mechanisms captive to predatory institutions and persons, and replaces hierarchical neofeudalism. Steem replaces overlords and serfs with peers and decentralization by it's blogging for rewards mechanism.
If it's done right, it's a model that can be a vector for change more powerful than we commonly imagine. Eliminating author rewards eliminates that paradigm changing potential.
Go ahead and eliminate curation rewards. They're only parasitic. Steem is far from perfect, but like a lungfish clumsily flopping about in the muck catching bugs out of water, brings new possibilities to the world.
Steem-power still generates 8% APR, which could be used as "free tips/upvotes".
The reward-pool is just an additional 3% distributed interest anyway.
I don't think that shifting the source of the upvote-tips would "kill the steem".
There is actually a proposal in the DAO to create blacklist API. You could promote it and vote it up.
What I'm proposing is a mute blacklist that users can opt-into and or opt-out of.
The current blacklist is basically a mechanism that lets some unspecified party or parties pick and choose which accounts I can see and which accounts I cannot see for capricious and opaque "reasons".
I currently have no choice to opt-out.
I can opt-into and opt-out of the "nsfw" mute blacklist, I'd like to have the same choice regarding any other blacklist that's imposed on my account.
The nsfw is just a tag people use to identify their posts as being not safe for work. You don't see it because UIs handle this tag specially. I have never seen it referred to as a 'blacklist'.
If I want to no longer see profanity, we could tell @SteemPeak developers that it would be good to have a profanity tag that users could put on their posts. This is the honors system and it's a good idea. The poster has to use the tag and you count on them. If they don't do it, then what?
Blacklists are by their nature not something members of the said list opt into. It's for the maintainers of the steem sites that opt in to the black lists. This is the UI level. Talk to the maintainers of the UIs to no longer subscribe to these lists or appeal to the list maintainers. As a third option you can support a competing Steem site. The users that support my web-site will be the whales of that site. Those that do can maintain the black lists or make sure blacklists are opt-in only.
Take a look at https://www.steemfiles.com. It uses steem for logging in and shows you a price ticker. I could add features like browsing articles and posting, and the investors will never see their posts hidden on steemfiles.com. I could setup an investment scheme where twenty people invest 100 SBD and they get a site on the Steem blockchain that ignores flags. Rewards are on the blockchain level though so there is nothing I can do about that.
Yeah, I understand the "private-community-reward-pool" dynamic.
I'm only concerned about visibility.
Sign me up.
I'm pretty sure you can copy the steemit code (for free) and modify it to ignore rep and blacklists.
This is a choice the maintainers of steemit.com, steempeak.com, busy.org, the esteem App, or 3speak, steemfiles.com make. There is nothing you or I can do about that.
However, you can make it your choice by changing you UI that doesn't subscribe to the blacklist you are on. If 3speak subscribes to a black list you are on, you can decide to not use 3speak.
Just because I advocate for improvements, that doesn't mean it isn't currently the best among alternatives.
I love how everyone around here instantly jumps to "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT".
Don't you think there's some room for improvement?
Yes, I do! I thought a lot of what you wrote.
Definitions are definitions though: I think the majority's definition 'blacklist' is:
A list of people who are prevented from doing or using something.
So with that out of the way. I like your reference to the 'nsfw' tag. Now this is a tag. There is another tag for worthless posts for experimenting. It's called spam. I used to write software that would talk to RPC nodes and software could write posts to the blockchain. The software would post a message that said 'test' and one of the tags was 'spam.' So, I wasn't flagged.
I think you could invent a new tag for your reasons they flagged you. Something that describes why it gets flagged and then try to get curators to not flag posts with that tag for that reason.
Black-lists are maintained by those who curate them and there is nothing we can do. I do think some of my posts are being unfairly flagged at times, so I can relate.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply.
If comments are viewable by default and I "mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) blacklist.
If comments are hidden by default and I "un-mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) whitelist.
I should be able to blacklist and whitelist MY OWN VIEWING OPTIONS.
I should NOT be able to blacklist and whitelist EVERYONE'S VIEWING OPTIONS.
Perhaps low rep users could voluntarily add #unpopular or #misunderstood or #censorship to all their posts and comments. I wasn't aware of the #spam tag, that seems like a reasonable model.
Do you know how the current blacklists are created and maintained? Are they democratic or are they dictatorial?
Are certain accounts whitelisted (immune) from stemcleaners and buldawhale and cheetabot?
It already exists and has been running for almost 3 years and is now integrated with Steemit.com & Steempeak.com.
Yes after commenting I read @stpthemarkymark post. I watched the interview videos with you. I learned you had organized several APIs for existing lists and the consequences of eliminating downvoting. You're staying on my witness list unless you get to the top three in which case, for strategy, I might remove to vote for another witness that needs it more.
Do please add 'opt in' functionality to the API for users.
Why would anyone opt in?
If no one wants to opt in, why force them in?
I would opt in to a blacklist that contained all of Bernie's accounts, if you dared to make it.
You do understand the purpose?
I disagree, depending on the details.