Then you have hivewatchers getting funded who cost us money by driving away users and shrinking our userbase and our buyers of hive
Please provide clear evidence of this
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Then you have hivewatchers getting funded who cost us money by driving away users and shrinking our userbase and our buyers of hive
Please provide clear evidence of this
Blurt only exists because of Hivewatchers.
The only user I know of who moved there is scammer and abuser mmmmkkkk311/mariuszkarowski
You could take a look. You'd recognize a lot of users there. You deserve credit for putting upwards pressure on Blurt's token price by increasing it's userbase.
Blurt is a scam haven for abusers, and Blurt's price is next to worthless. Same as Steemit.
I don't know enough about Blurt to dispute it's nature with you. I've never used it. While you're not wrong about it's token price, it may be hubris to crow about Hive's token price, as we approach the haircut today. I left Steemit and never looked back, so I don't care about it's token price. I don't know mmmmkkkk311, or whatever his username is, so can't comment on his character. You might be right. However, the folks I do know that use Blurt aren't scammers, but strong proponents of free speech that ubiquitously claim they were taxed, many by you, 100% of all their rewards until they left Hive.
So, you deserve recognition for playing a substantial role in creating Blurt from all evidence available to me.
Blurt forked specifically to eliminate downvotes, and @khrom posted mathematical proof that DV's concentrate stake, so it's hard to conceive of any more substantial reason for that orgy of flags and censorship that has pared >1m users that onboarded from May 2017 down to <10k today than to do exactly that. ~36 whales possess just over 50% of stake and thereby control the code the witnesses run which enables those whales to extract >90% of the inflation issued from the rewards pool. You may not be very effective at preventing scams and spam (DV's don't generally discourage either, as they profit via other mechanisms than post and comment rewards) but you have been integral in enabling the whales to maintain a lock on governance on Hive, which explains why your DHF proposal is continuously funded. You are a valuable player to the people that matter (because they run Hive) and I give credit where credit is due.
You have done a great job for them, and certainly earn every satoshi of your pay from their perspective.
It is impossible to censor anything on the Hive blockchain. Downvotes do not erase the content from the chain.
If they were blacklisted by Hivewatchers, it was for the abuse, not some sort of opinions.
Khrom in the ned was not blacklisted, although he was perpetually exploiting Tipu in a small circle farming.
Making up your own definition of 'censor' doesn't support your case. Censorship isn't erasure, as I'm sure I've pointed out to you in the past, or you have had ample opportunity to verify yourself by simply looking up the accepted definition supplied by authoritative dictionaries.
Using your definition of 'censor' it is impossible to censor anything at all, anywhere. The No Hiding theorem of physics establishes that information cannot be lost to the universe, even by falling into a black hole. Since information cannot be lost to the universe, by your defintion of censorship it is simply a fallacious concept.
Since we're speaking English, please use the English definition of censorship, so that we can communicate using words that have the same meaning, and aren't just talking about different things using the same words.
I didn't say Khrom was blacklisted, but that he posted proof DV's concentrate stake.