Moving to another blockchain is probably the best solution for those not yet fully invested in the STEEM blockchain. Then the current stakeholders can have their share. A full share of nothing potentially.
Perhaps they might consider coming to a more affordable compromise if they consider that, not unlikely, scenario?
They may claim it is not probable, but I think that most outside investors would agree with the reality that there is no purpose in filling the pockets of those who have taken the lions share of the pie for themselves in the mining phase at the beginning. Especially when, in doing so, they empower those same early speculators, to have authority over the direction of the platform, and ultimately control the destiny of their investment.
The current whales have demonstrated considerable ineptitude in their conduct on the platform. Smart money won't follow dumb money.
It is not possible to create a new blockchain based on the Steem blockchain, without explicit written permission from Steemit, Inc.
That I hadn't realized. I just read the license on the steem main source and these are the relevant conditions:
So while technically possible it could land some people in court 😓
Not necessarily. You could start a new, nested blockchain inside the current one and still adhere to all the conditions listed.
It wouldn't even be that hard. Im sure i havent thought of everything, but here's a basic model.
You post a genesis block. Make a whole different coin. Call it Meets or something. Meets transactions can just be specially formatted replies to the block post.
The next block is a new post that includes all the transactions. The one who gets to produce it is the first one to achieve a signature that is less than some predetermined base 58 number (i guess it would be variable like BTC mining difficulty).
The cool thing about meets is you could use it on the steem blockchain... you could have (if you wanted) your own meets reward pool. And vote on posts on the steem blockchain with it. this is the way golos would have done it if they were smart.
Seem like it could be technically possible to do that. I'd love to read a more detailed proposal of it, even just as a "what if" scenario. Get some debate going from the more technically savvy than I because I have a niggling feeling there's a catch there.
Interesting idea, thanks! 😁
Kind of off topic, but do you know the licensing status of steemit.com / condenser? There's no usual license file there
Sorry, I don't. I believe it is open source / OK to replicate, but I am not 100% sure. If you contact @sneak (email: sneak at Steemit.com) he should be able to tell you.
Thanks for the reply
Mr @timcliff, I have now replied to you twice. On both occasions, I have replied to your reference to the 'Rules'. You seem to be something of an honest cop. I had a message from one of the founders yesterday. He was nothing short of rude. So, sod him.
'Rules' are there for the betterment of the situation(s) in which they are applied, whether it be Rugby, Traffic or Government. These rules, when they become obsolete or they cause a trend which is contrary to the intent of the rules as a whole, get changed.
It seems amply evident from the current 'Rules' of steemit.com that they are obsolete and require a complete overhaul.
I am currently looking into a post I saw this morning which lists the actual investors into steem and, hence, steemit. I notice that there is not one financial investor in the top 25 accounts, yet it is these 25 accounts which have brought steemit to its knees. Meanwhile the investors have lost an average of 72% of their money.
Gaining leverage through mining has given the whole of steemit.com a smell of Greed. These miners have also decided that the well-being of all others, investors included is of absolutely no concern. I can hear Marie Antoinette (though she did not say it): "Let them eat cake." The problem is that the top 25 accounts have all the cake, Marie!
If the early miners did not sacrifice their time, knowledge/expertise, and resources at the time when the platform was just getting started - there would be no Steemit.
Ah, the nice policeman ... thank you. Yes, I hear what you say, they do deserve acknowledgement - very much agreed with your viewpoint. There is, unfortunately, the ledger of performance which has cost investors a lot of money - in the millions of dollars. The responsibility for this can only be placed at the feet of these people who have acted like school children.
So, a realignment of power and responsibility is needed and that can only be done from the Company it seems. It would be helpful if all the miners acknowledged their performance as being lacking in any substance. I called it immoral and it certainly appears to be the case that investors have been treated like dirt.
Give it a few days, you've already got more than many have in weeks, dan has said nothing btw, he just whizzed by :| It's a interesting point on the investors, I wonder how they are doing indeed, many stats are needed
Just posted the start of it - not pretty!
Thank you @j3dy - By the way, I am a bit late for the money, I am studying the organism. It is fascinating.
Correct. This fact does not preclude what I described from occurring. Steem is not the only blockchain to choose from, and as I have already described and you alluded to, it is unworkable in its current state.
It could even be possible for Steemit to fork to a new Steem blockchain (minus problematic stakeholders), but I wouldn't expect that to be a discussion carried out in public. That discussion would probably happen behind closed doors.
Well, I can't say that I agree with it, but destroying the entire blockchain and screwing over everyone that has bought or earned stake up until this point is one solution.
They are doing it to themselves now. There is little difference really.