RE: HBD Aftershock
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I can personally guarantee everyone on this network that my voice has been heard many times, and sometimes is even acted upon, which is pretty cool when you think about it. Everyone has their part to play.
What are there, like 10k active users? Not even close to a parallel comparison.
"We should be having town-hall meetings and discussing these things in a public forum." Great idea, bruv. What in the actual fuck do you think is happening right now? lol. Cut the shit: you're not a victim.
Nice strawman you're building here
Your hyperbole is entertaining I guess, which is why you get those votes.
After the wash, Hive ends up being the exact structure as the hated US government, except you can vote witnesses out at anytime. The inherent complacency of the average human ensures that will be unlikely at any scale that's necessary to improve on the governance structure.
Stake based governance guarantees that an Oligarchy will arise, which it has and be in control when they feel like it. As we are discussing the issue, the one claiming to be asking for a discussion was already signalling 12%. They've since changed it, but shows that we can talk all we want, it's just to make us feel better, because our input is not only unnecessary, but since there's no polling, assumptions will be made claiming the end result is what we wanted.
I've seen this exact thing go down that way multiple times in the past and it's unproveable without polling if something is actually supported by the majority. Also, deny all you want, a bottleneck in governance of 21 people cannot be decentralized. Rationalizations do not equal facts.
Hive is not a democracy, never was, never will be, doesn't pretend to operate on that model.
It's dpos and it takes a handful of people to make the arguement, because the stake based system is geared to investors. It operates more closely to a corporation than a democracy. I know you didn't use the word democracy, but I thught it was interesting that you seem to think the stakeholders should react to the talking points and discussion.
Stake rules, doesn't make them right, or smart or good or bad for that matter, just means it takes a handful of them to outvote the rest of the community.
In a corporation usually takes 1. Shrugs, if you know it's DPOS the only thing to judge is whether or not you trust and respect the stakeholder.
Right, which is why we can't get the masses here. Decentralization is a dream that's touted, but not practiced. Hell, by @edicted's defintion of it, the US Gov is decentralized. As for a democracy? None exist nor ever have. That's doesn't mean things shouldn't be talked out with as many heads involved as possible. Also, your point doesn't mean that anyone has to roll over and shut up without a fight either.
It's not a comparison at all.
It is a statement of fact.
My words have clearly had a provable affect on this network.
To say that it's all controlled by 20 people is silly.
Especially considering that the bottom half of the top 20 is always changing.
A strawman argument fallacy eh?
People are annoying and entitled. They demand the world and refuse to do any of the work required to get there. "Someone else should be doing this!" People come here and ask why they aren't at the top of the trending tab after a week. I've seen it all: they are delusional and oblivious to how things actually work. That's not a strawman that's 6 years of experience being on this network for thousands of hours.
Oh look at that an account older that mine that has less total value locked inside that what I make here in 3 days. What the actual fuck is this? Who are you? What have you been doing here for the last 7 years? Seriously though. It's always the people who aren't willing to risk anything or extract the most value for themselves that I end up having these conversations with. Every time. How the fuck am I supposed to take you seriously when this is the first thing I see when I lookup your account? I just can't even right now.
Here's a theory for you:
It's people like you who aren't building up your stack and increasing your power within the network that are literally allowing the oligarchy to materialize. Duh? So basically this is all your fault. Which logical fallacy is that, I wonder. Or is it just gaslighting? Seriously why do you think you get a say in the direction of this network? I'm truly curious.
Every single governance structure in the world is stake based. There is no such thing as a government where the rich and powerful do not rule. At least in crypto the average person can benefit from that because the rich are literally backstopping the value of currency in every single citizen's pocket. You don't get that with a debt based private bank fractional reserve.
Absurd from every point-of-view possible. Hive is an OPT-IN DIGITAL government that people can join, fork, or leave at any time. It cannot jail anyone or threaten lethal force. It doesn't legally oblige parents to send their kids to the brainwashing camps we call the public school system.
I apologize if you feel personally attacked by any of this (not my intent despite my tone) and truly stuff like this is just dust in the wind for me. My memory is not good and next month I will forget that we even had this conversation.
Well, it's the discrepancy between what is factual and how advertising works.
If it is the case that the dumbest user is supposed to come here (who is considered the "masses"), he believes the advertising (can you blame him?) and expects to see what it offers him.
The masses only come if you offer them quick earning opportunities or fun and a special user experience of some kind. But everyone who knows how advertising works knows that this is just advertising and not reality.
However, if everyone who realises that it is advertising would behave accordingly, there would be no need for advertising in the first place. So those who act with financial risk here are dependent on those who take advertising literally, but at the same time no one who does so is taken seriously.
So if you, as an expert on the economic processes here, are annoyed by those who don't understand them (I don't mean you personally), that doesn't help you either. The common user who votes for a witness also expects rationality and knowledge of the situation from him, and the witness expects the same from his voter. But both have limited abilities and knowledge, as you pointed out in your last blog (that counts not only for the witnesses).
Your response reminds me of the saying "Look not at what your country can do for you, but at what you can do for your country." No matter how "stupid" a critique on the current situation seems to you, if you respond in such a way as to highlight a lack of commitment, you may win the argument, but you lose as a person.
Your point is emotional in this way, arguing a lack of work ethic, according to which a good person is a hard-working one.
If your goal is to motivate or enlighten, you could refrain from such comparisons about who has "done" how much and what since they started on the chain.
If you want achievers, you could take the ridiculous-sounding complaint of one individual as representative of the many who have certain irrational complaints in dozens of places and at all times. As a matter of fact, the many don't participate in politics as active commenters or proposal-givers. It is the few who, precisely by making their ignorance known, provide valuable clues to what the decision-makers can pay attention to. In fact, all repeat themselves non-stop. That's just the way it is.
The admittedly funny cartoon has the message that you as the answer-giver occupy the pulpit and the commentator stands there in the crowd and disappears as soon as you call him to work as a know-it-all (about him). How about changing the setting, getting off the pedestal and being the rational guy who manages to circumnavigate an irrational statement and inspire the one person to reconsider his view? By emphasising that your voice does carry weight, you come across as a poser. It may imply the opposite of what you intended to say.
Your super-fast research, resulting in the screenshot as proof of his illogic, ignores what you don't know. It doesn't matter how hard someone toils in your eyes or how much time or money they have invested/risked, they may have said or contributed something of value at some point to someone who matters in the platforms politics.
Quantitative assessment does not necessarily say a thing about quality. One can talk shit a hundred times and say or do something once that benefits someone else in the system; or made them reconsider. For indeed, every voice carries weight and while one may reject repetitive non sensical statements, they are taken as justified (perhaps against one's better judgement in your eyes). What you call entitlement.
Pointing out how little skin in the game someone has seems to me to be more of a common issue that influences sentiment and creates division. You could probably equally be criticised for rarely stepping outside your own bubble and seldom responding outside your expertise to the common economically untrained user as a commentator. Insofar as you are saying that you are giving this platform a loss as a blogosphere anyway, any argument that actually takes "blogging to make money" seriously must seem ridiculous to you. But then I am back where I began. Advertisement.