I never viewed it as nefarious as he would gain nothing from such a lie.
I view it more like this.
Everyone in that picture holds a valid extension of the elephant in their hands. And in turn they each believe what appear to be contradictory observations that are true in reality.
It would take a lot of time and words to paint an accurate description of the elephant if one were to go into deep detail on every part of the elephant.
I view the presentation he makes weekly to be one where he is just saying
here is the elephant
so as not to confuse folks with a large 5000 word dissection on all of the parts. I imagine most wouldn't read such a work if he did put in the effort as many seem to shy away from math and appreciate someone who simplifies it as he is doing for them. My examination wasn't meant to be a critique as much as an examination on two of the limbs if you would.
I note in his response to myself he actually does mention he addresses a little more into my examination than I understood with the voting capacity. Which is further proof of how easy it is to get lost in these descriptions as I was ignorant he was accounting for some of the (dead) dormant stake that exists here in his reports. It's easy for these type of disconnects to happen once we label something. In my mind I viewed/labeled this as dead stake and it was pointed to me that a better description is dormant, and in my mind the same label dead stake and his use on his reports voting capacity.
Just curious, but did attacking him do anything for you, make you feel satisfied? Help scratch that itch of anger inside of you? Do you feel it contributed anything of value?
erm, complementary - voting capacity is the un-dead, un-dormant, wakeful stake ;-)
or an approximation thereof!
I just posted the latest "weekly", and mentioned the VC again. Also that it was designed to be a tracker rather than an accurate estimate. Real activity is reflected in the recent claims, but that is a 15-day trailing indicator, whereas VC is a current estimator. Thus if VC rises one week, then claims should rise next week - given other things equal.
Yes, the lightbulb went off last night once you explained it :)
It's a good demonstration on how the labels we decide on can limit how we are viewing something that is using a different label. I normally don't worry over this stuff as well which helped contribute to my ignorance.
I only concerned myself with it here based initially on the presentation of numbers that were giving a misleading view of what a stake battle could look like. The more I looked I saw such positive news from the numbers on dormant (dead) stake putting us much closer to scarcity than one would originally think. I about fell out of my chair seeing how much liquid Blurt upbit alone holds for example. Under a free for all stake system which is the current topic they alone would be pretty hard to stop if they decided they wanted to branch out into the blockchain control business. Unlikely but wow.
Right, and Steemit only had in place an agreement for exchanges not to interfere with governance - there was nothing in the code to legitimately block (as agreed) such accounts from doing so - hence binance were able to powerup and help JSun ;-) code trumps words!
Indeed, BLURT is scarce!