I didn't lose anything in the botched takeover attempt by Justin Sun. I sold my STEEM coins and pocketed the money. At the end of the day, I had more value than before. Thanks for the fish!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I didn't lose anything in the botched takeover attempt by Justin Sun. I sold my STEEM coins and pocketed the money. At the end of the day, I had more value than before. Thanks for the fish!
You clearly do not understand the value of the network you benefit from to you, and I commend you to gaining that understanding. Nothing is more valuable to you than the goodwill of your community, and without it you would die.
The fork to Hive did great harm to our community. It wasn't enough to destroy Hive immediately, but is ongoing and yet may eventually. I suggest you have a look at the data @arcange daily publishes about the number of users, posts, comments, votes, and etc, to grasp the extent of the reduction in growth Hive has experienced since it's incarnation relative to that it enjoyed when there was only Steem.
Just because you don't understand or acknowledge something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Society is vastly more valuable than tokens. Mike Tyson said that Don King would sell his mother for a dollar.
Would you? Would having that dollar be considered benefiting to you? Merely having more tokens, or having tokens with more value, does not mean that you didn't lose anything in the Forkening, nor does Hive's persistence indicate Sun botched the takeover. Sun botched a lot of things, but he did successfully take over Steem, and that cost you a big chunk of the network that was available to you before he did.
You're full of shit:
This is monthly active users from March 2016 until now.
You are neglecting a huge elephant in the room which is the massive growth in the number of Splinterlands players, which happened after the fork.
Lecturing again.
Fuck you.
He did not manage to take over what was Steem before he came along.
My personal network is here entirely. When I think back to Steem before the fork, I can't say I miss a lot of it. The truly obnoxious whales, the flame wars, all the unabashed milking, the bid bot abuse, all the spam and other abuse as well as Steemit Inc's ineptitude are things I'm glad to see gone.
While Splinterlands is very successful, and I hope will continue to be, the basic premise and use case for Hive remains to decentralize social media by enabling content creators to receive the financial rewards, at least in part, generated from the content they create. Splinterlands is great, but the social media market is far greater, and I note that without Splinterlands Hive has not been able to leverage it's underlying use case because of our failure to decentralize governance and limit censorship to spam, scams, and plagiarism.
As part of the value of social media, in light of the growing censorship of social media platforms, censorship resistance is an integral aspect of Hive. Insofar as censorship has been inflicted on Hive creators other than for spamming, scamming, or plagiarism, it is contrary to that core functionality and use case of Hive. It has driven off many users, including those with large audiences, and this has greatly limited adoption and growth.
I see that censorship has strongly deprecated the Hive community, and that has prevented Hive from attaining the growth and economic benefits that should have resulted from censorship resistance and decentralized governance. It is the failure to decentralize governance that caused the Forkening. All of the value retained by Steem has been lost to Hive through that event, and those same flaws plagued Steem before the Forkening, and continue to afflict Hive and Steem today.
Hive can replace legacy financial institutions, governments, and social media (that have lately been shown to be illegally colluding to censor Americans), yet is prevented from fully attaining it's potential by it's flaws. I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but failing to rectify flaws in governance that arise from how witness votes are weighted, and allowing censorship of dissent instead of only for necessary purposes, continue to prevent Hive from becoming as valuable to our community - and the free world - as it should be. As governments, financial institutions, and social media platforms censor people more and more, the market for censorship resistance increases, and Hive is failing to benefit from this existential threat to our detriment.
I strongly agree with your recollection of how Hive has improved by enabling censorship to eliminate bid bots and rank abuse of flagging by certain stakeholders, but I note that some of those bid botters and abusers are consensus witnesses on Hive today. Because I strongly believe in the core use case of Hive as social media that financially rewards creators I advocate against misuse of censorship. Because I strongly believe in voluntarism and decentralization, I advocate against plutocracy. Advocating for fixing these flaws is not whinging about being flagged, promoting Communism, or reducing security from Sybil attacks. Hive is today governed largely by a plutocracy that was overthrown on Steem by Sun Yuchen. Sun was not the problem. He was a symptom of the problem. We have not fixed that problem because for that plutocracy it is the feature their continued governance depends on.
If we can get governance and censorship right, or at least righter, we will all benefit from more freedom, more users, and more wealth. The success of Splinterlands is a good thing, but it is not going to enable Hive to succeed at the more substantive functionality it has. I want Hive to conquer the world, not compete with Pokemon for market share. Society is immeasurably more valuable than money, and that core value is something that needs to be first and foremost if Hive is to succeed. Insofar as it isn't, we continue to fall short of our potential.
Hive has far greater value than it's token, it's code, or it's games. That value is in the community and their voices, and isn't being realized because of our failure to secure governance from mere plutocracy, and to prevent suppression of dissent with tools intended to prevent spam, scams, and plagiarism. We should fix those problems and enable Hive to reach it's potential.
I otherwise agree but I have a comment about this paragraph:
Censorship and flagging are two completely different things. The chain stores everything written on it. Flagging only affects reward distribution and visibility on specific front ends whose owners choose to use rewards to influence visibility in a certain way.
The difference is crucial, IMO. It is completely up to the front ends to decide what content they show. Anyone is free to build their own front end. We have dozens of front ends already. IIRC, Ecency shows more of the heavily flagged content than Peakd or Hive.blog.
Also, if you compare the way how Hive's stake distribution develops, you can see how much better it is compared to almost any crypto project. Steem started out as even more uneven of a stake distribution. The PoB mechanism is constantly spreading stake to new stakeholders none of whom were among the original miners. We also have new whales who've bought their influence.
I mostly agree with your comments here, with the exception that flagging isn't just something that front ends show. Downvotes, which I refer to as flags, are financial impacts. The front ends translate the blockchain data, but the downvotes are blockchain data. I am sure we will agree that financial mechanisms are very often used to censor people, as noted in earlier comments. In addition to direct financial impact, reputation is also impacted, and this is where the front ends most differ in the impact of downvotes.
I appreciate very deeply that we can have this conversation on Hive. Can you imagine having such a discussion on Twatter or Fakebook? Hive is censorship resistant because it uses downvotes to censor spam, scams, and plagiarism while enabling the community to counter flags and out-support content that has been financially attacked by downvotes.
That's why I'm here and not on Twatter or elsewhere. Enabling financial attacks to be used by the community to prevent spam is a good thing. Financial attacks on dissenting opinions by overlords is a very bad thing, and anyone with an opinion that isn't handed to them by overlords should be very averse to it. The Hive community has some ability to support those who are censored, but this often requires supporting speech one doesn't particularly agree with, and that isn't something most of us do often, or well.
People that support censoring those whose speech they disagree with end up being censored. When overlords censor their hapless subjects, it is always to conceal safety data, danger signals, and the like. Censorship of opinion is an existential threat that is always carried out. You can see - or could have watched as it happened - many people who supported censoring 'conspiracy theorists' suddenly changing their minds when harm came to them or their loved ones from the conspiracy in question, and then disappearing from the conversation when they were censored, just as they'd once advocated, by the conspirators.
Losing our tokens from a post isn't the existential harm losing our lives in a pogrom is, so it's easy to dismiss the issue on Hive, because Hive isn't most people's sole source of danger signals. Such dismissal just deprecates Hive, and keeps it from becoming that essential communications platform where people in danger can get information that keeps them alive in a dangerous world.
Hive has potential to be far more than Twatter. I think that potential has been flagged away for years, and I'd really like to see Hive attain it's potential, because I'd really like people to actually govern their communities on actual dirt, voluntarily contributing funds, forthrightly discussing policy, and etc, without the potential for overlords to control them by buying control of the dialogue. Centralized platforms make that control facile. Hive should make it much harder than we have yet. Insofar as profiteering is the problem, I address the problem as I get around to it.
We can do that on Hive, but not so much anywhere else.
The thing is that this is a user-owned platform. If rarely but sometimes do flag content that I find really disagreeable. To the extent I have influence here, this is my platform. No one is entitled to any rewards here whatsoever. It is the token holders who control the rewards and they have the right to use their influence to rewards the sort of content they want. Period. It is always possible to buy Hive Power from the free market.
I think the problem of rewards and reputation is to a large part due to the early stage we're in. As time passes, it becomes easier for communities deviating from mainstream opinion to be set up and thrive also in financial terms through second-layer tokenization. Reputation is also one of the parameters front ends are completely free to ignore and replace with one of their own.