Jaki Asks, I answer
This image is here to ensure that your eyes don't get burned out. Towards the end of the article I make a point quite graphically.
@jacobgadikian told me there would be not only one or two but "500" different Blurt blockchains in future, and I asked him what the advantage would be of having several blockchains compared to using just one, and if they (the blockchains) will all support/transfer different currencies (token) ....? In that case I would wonder if they could gain popularity as easy as one single, but well known coin/blockchain can?
I think so. I saw SMT's as value-theives. SMTs leech value away from communities to the "mother" blockchain, which has the infrastructure and therefore is the only thing that matters.
Also, the network of chains will be able to seamlessly move value between each other using Cosmos IBC.
This design pattern will enable far more extensive experimentation, because economic functions will be paramaterized and can be customized to suit the needs of each community.
Since each chain will have its own infrastructure, all communities will have an equal footing with the others.
Since all chains share the same code base, updates can easily be merged back to the template. Bling is probably going to serve as the template.
As I am now here asking, furthermore I would like to know if "Blurt 2" will just be called "Blurt 2" or which name is envisaged for the new token(s) and chain(s)?
My suggestion for a new social network ould be "Colony" (bee HIVE and ant Colony, you know ...). :-)
Please, tell me something (as much as possible!) about the advantages of the Cosmos protocol. Is it as good as Polkadot? :)
Way better than Polkadot, for economic and technical reasons. Cosmos has no ecosystem tax, polkadot does.
Cosmos allows devs to write pure Go, and Polkadot forces developers to use a "you get no standard libraries" version of Rust that gets compiled to wasm and run in a virtual machine.
What will be especially the advantages of "Blurt 2" compared to "Blurt 1"? Security 'only' to be separated from the influence of the HIVE witnesses? Some other advantages, please? :) What about transaction speed and possible fees? Could dapps like Splinterlands run on "Blurt 2"? What about video applications?
My goal re: fees is for the flagship chain to have fees ~$1/blog post. I see fees as a feature, not a bug because they keep the chain from becoming a garbage patch.
- Further reading on garbage patches: https://www.coindesk.com/how-blockchains-become-great-big-garbage-patches-for-data
No, security is not the only motive. Probably the biggest motive is a far better community. The biggest technical motivation is also not security-- instead, the biggest technical motive is flexability-- Cosmos has Graphene entirely beat in the developer experience department.
Will there still be a five minutes 'curation window' after which curators will earn less curation rewards? Or are author rewards and curation curve completely linear now? Even if I am not a fan of the completely linear curve, I don't mind it much as long as ideas aginst the profitability of self-voting (like for example the 'two-rewards-pool-idea of @rycharde) will be implemented. However, I don't like the five minutes curation window which favours automated voting (as I explained for example here) and hope Blurt will get rid of it (or already removed it?).
No crazy curation window
@rycharde, @beerchemist are consulting on economic design
How far has Blurt progressed concerning implementing ideas like 'diminishing returns' when upvoting the same accounts again and again by using something similar for example to "Voting CSI" of SteemWorld?
0
These days I was in favour of committees who decide about the justification of flags.
The witnesses run the chain, you know?
Is it correct that instead of that in Blurt witnesses will create kind of a blacklist to decide which users are eligible to earn posting/curation rewards and which aren't?
Yep, though that is not complete, and may be implemented differently in Bling. I do hope we find a way to bolt it onto B1, too.
I wonder what will happen to "Blurt 1" after "Blurt 2" is running? I personally like to see all my posts at one single place (I know @afrog, I know, you disagree here), and hesitate to start writing here a lot, if anyway soon everybody will move (again) to Blurt 2. I feel that as soon as Blurt 2 is released successfully there is no real reason anymore to keep Blurt 1 running. In case I would like Blurt 2 I also would consider to post my old STEEM and HIVE posts there again.
Last but not least: who will be (why) eligible for the mysterious planned airdrop? If that question is forbidden, then just be it.
There are no forbidden questions on Blurt.
blurt loves you for asking a question you thought might be forbidden.
Everyone who makes a certain transaction, and is not connected to the poop-nexus (it's very, very few people).
But seriously the standard for new chains, across the whole 500 will be like:
- Did the user take the step requested to join the genesis?
- Are the creators of the new chain okay with that user coming along for the ride?
- Corollary: You do realize that I (Jacob) have no hope of creating enough chains to meaningfully compete with FB/twitter, right?
- Corollary to the Corollary: What if it was made super-easy to airdrop on the holders of any chain in Blurt's freaky network? Are coders lazy? Do communities want experience and support?
- Corollary: You do realize that I (Jacob) have no hope of creating enough chains to meaningfully compete with FB/twitter, right?
yep
Folks can be excluded at the time of genesis. This is another mechanism encouraging users to treat each other well. At any time, someone could come up, spin up a new chain, and I mean come on, would you bring on a user who.....
Well, you might want to, if you're really into cock. Otherwise you probably don't want to.
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
PS: Hoppe expresses some ideas that I don't agree with, but on the point that communities can be shaped by exclusion as much as inclusion, and that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with exclusion, he and I agree.
PPS: Yes, this means that some of my past criticisms of both steem and hive were not well-placed. (but I would not have made the same calls as either steem or hive)
This is because genesis provides an opportunity for a community to shape itself. I will provide more info on this later.
As pertains to Bling, however, I wish to be super-clear:
There shall be no mass-retaliation against Hive or Hive leaders for anything. At the end of the day we don't know who attacked us and have bigger fish to fry.
The community and its developers must be nourished by the questions, there are no questions or wrong answers, only knowledge, so it is necessary that we all take the time to ask, to consult, to inquire in order to learn and to understand where we can make decisions together. Thank you for answering all these questions
These clarifications are very important, as users currently have many questions and above all an anxiety to know the next steps in the chain. The only thing I can say is that there may be better things and we cannot simply limit ourselves to what we already know.
@jaki01 did a great job with questions.
BTW didn't you put together a list of questions for a video interview?
Happy to do that any time :)
I can invite you to a live interview on the Blurthispano channel, we have a translator and many people with questions, let me ask what day we can have a meeting.
Just let me know when and send a calendar invitation to [email protected]
One factoid that is rarely taught about "democracy" is that the Athenians voted out their democracy and voted in a military gov! One should, however, be careful in voting away your rights to vote again ;-)
I think I need to write about the big-D - no, not that one - "Dependencies". It overlaps with, yet is more important than, Decentralisation; a long word with a long history of failures. I maintain that any system that may start decentralised but has centralising features - or bugs, or dumb ideas - cannot claim to be decentralised at all. Agorism turns to agonism fairly quickly ;-)
at times like these it is very important that you answer all these questions and it is certainly better here on Blurt than on discord. That way we are all seeing the way and at the same time raising new questions. I'm glad that on blurt there is room for banned questions and other things too hahahaha.
I don't really like the idea of excluding people from the new blockchain. Blacklisting the users from earning. What are the criteria in that case? That's basically a private blockchain. But ok. It's yours to do whatever you want.
Not mine.
The community's.
In fact, private blockchain communities are absolutely in the roadmap.
I'm glad to hear that.