Hi there!
So, I did try to ask for @jacobgadikian something about Social Money for Enemies in the comments onto a post
Why does blurt lack a dollar stablecoin? that he made. But... haters have into any places... as expected...
source
I believe that because of that ... is that possible ... something that I don't know. He didn't answer other questions. So I guess that here on the Blurt, He is in his "speech place". Is that possible that he'll more comfortable to answer. If... He read this post of course.
About my first question
I'd read the post that you published on Abr/07 entitled Social Money for enemies. My question is...
Do you believe that that post explains completely the sense of "Social Money for enemies"?No, it's not nearly good enough.
In fact, my positions on a lot of the ideas expressed in that article have changed.
I no longer think that it's possible or desirable to have a single contiguous community that spans all categories.
I explored this idea a little bit in "going massively multichain" but it's fair to say that I'm living it with https://blurt.world.
The next one...
@jacobgadikian, Regarding that, you had changed your ideas. Do you believe that the main-idea that made you work on Blurt blockchain, has changed also? I meant t,he concept "Social Money for Enemies". Does it has changed as well?
I think that had a philosophic idea behind of it. Don't?
Me too! I found no explanation, so I'm interested in one.
I found a little bit on Blurt: Massively Multichain Decentralized Social Media. There is an interesting point on that post. But just @jacobgadikian has the right answer for that question... I guess.
Thanks for the hint.
The idea hasn't changed at all really. Blurt community will be composed of exactly NOT the kind of people who make such charming remarks as the post you screenshotted at the top of your article.
"Social money for enemies" relates to the fact that in this chain, you can't use your money as a weapon. The idea is that if that's what gets you going, to harass and irritate, and, for extra bonus points, pay script kiddies to poke at people's other social media accounts or go after their associates - yeah, you can go do that somewhere else. Or you can pay the developers/witnesses/promoters for the privilege like anyone else.
Nothing stopping asshats from posting trolly comments on people, posting nasty memes, doxxing, whatever... they just will be helping the community with your fees and we are laughing at them. I personally think that we should not change fees from funding the DAO/foundation. The disincentive to spend ill-gotten scammy, spammy wealth from the other graphene chains should remain, in my opinion.
There is absolutely nothing positive to say about platforms that facilitate spam, trolling, and especially not circle jerking. We want to avoid circle jerk also, because we are allies here, not friends. We are on the same side, not in the same family. Some people get caught up in a cultish '(insert chain name) fam' and the environment does tend towards encouraging this kind of creepy nonsense.
It's social money for enemies, because you can be very opposed to some other person or group, but instead of hurling shit at them, you have to be a lot more creative to undermine or milk them. The downvotes and spammy trolly posts are 5 year old grade. Clever, double entendre and sarcastic is how civilised people deal with stupidity in other people.
AND
most importantly, there is no such thing as friends. I defer to Nassim Taleb on this:
I agree with @jacobgadikian when he said "Social money for enemies cannot be realized on a proof of stake network". Exactly because under this blockchain consensus if you have the money you can use that as a weapon. Something that Justin Sun used in the first place.
Thanks for sharing the post of Nassin Taleb. I follow him on Twitter also. Great!