I have long thought that implementing something inspired by a 2nd price auction for rewards in conjunction with a superlinear rewards curve (to discourage stake-splitting) would go a long way towards solving

So, from a purely functional perspective, the ideal front-end would maintain connections to both chains, track the various token prices (STEEM, HIVE, SMTs, and Steem-Engine, etc...), and let the user choose

If one of the problems that you want to address is overvalued votes (upvote and/or downvote), you may wish to explore the concept of a 2nd price auction. If coupled with a super-linear rewards curve (to

However, given the absolute torrent of filth flowing out against him lately, I'm not hesitating for a moment to upvote this Reminds me of some labor negotiations that I've seen. I have been amazed at how

Saw this on Twitter today: The Steem Takeover and the Coming Proof-of-Stake Crisis. I like their suggestion for a hybrid of proof-of-work + proof-of-stake. Steem actually had that for the first couple

I think we are better off with a diversity of witnesses to decentralise as much as possible. I agree. So I'm voting for enough witnesses on each side of the dispute to give each of the factions veto strength

Instead of (or in addition to) reducing numbers of votes, I think we should also increase the number of witnesses that participate in the consensus rounds, maybe to 40 or even 100. This whole mess was

IMO, this post shows that you're starting to learn a bit about the ecosystem that you have entered, so I'm glad about that! It's more than just blockchain, and it's more than just social media. The two

Thanks for the suggestion, but in my opinion, both of the leading factions have been bad actors here, so I'm voting for each to have veto strength against the other. This means I need to have 5 votes in

Thanks for the suggestion, but in my opinion, both of the leading factions have been bad actors here, so I'm voting for each to have veto strength against the other. This means I need to have 5 votes in

I'm voting for each of the warring factions to have veto strength against the other, so I can't really do that. Sorry to disappoint.

I can't find the post now, but someone suggested years ago (I think maybe @biophil?) using the #norobots tag to tell bots to ignore a post. I've had my bot programmed that way ever since. I also recently

I agree with this: My position on the initial "unfairly" acquired stake ultimately boils down to being fine with it. Especially since, as you say, their percentage seems to be around just 20

I don't know that I would ever trust them with my vote again, but never say never. Agreed. I kept a list of the early ones, after the first half-day or so. I also agree about never say never, but it would

I guess witnesses have the right to drop code if there are enough of them to adopt it I'm no lawyer, so I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if witnesses in the US could be found to be in violation

It's too late to matter now, but it strikes me as a really really bad idea to launch a financial war with a billionaire. This move probably just made it impossible for Steemit to continue to refrain from

IMO, anything that draws attention (brings eyeballs) to the blockchain should be eligible for rewards. Ultimately, attention is the sort of "value" that the blockchain is trying to harness.

Voted for Yes

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate the additional perspectives that you brought to the topic. Thinking, Fast and Slow has been on my to-read list for a long time, but it hadn't occurred to me in relationship

Thanks for the reply! I became interested in the internal dialogue as a teen reading the Castaneda books. He recommended stalking the internal dialogue, as he asserted the mind wasn't ours, but a foreign