My End Goal is for Users. Platforms paves the way for it.
RE: Blurt as a Progressive Web App + Mobile App
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Blurt as a Progressive Web App + Mobile App
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
it's too conflicting imo to be a witness of multi platforms which, are all competitive, it's almost impossible to serve one in a none biased way. I think one could create apps for them all but not have the best interests of each at heart. Just my opinion but I would never ever vote a witness on blurt who was also a hive witness and probably not even a serey one tbh even though I have no issues with serey and will no doubt join when I get a chance
No problem. I do understand your opinion.
Let me share an example - just as an attempt to change your opinion.
--
A doctor is giving his service to one of the hospital for like 3-4 hours. He has time in hand & he wants to serve more patients. He goes to another hospital - different environment, different patients - but at heart - his aim remains same - to serve patients.
A person complaints followings
In this scenario - That person sound like the administrator to the first hospital.
--
I think you're limiting your view by one platform. 8 months ago, you decided to leave one platform - for some reason.
Yesterday, you were on some other platform. Today, you're somewhere else.
Who might know - tomorrow you could be else-where or everywhere?
You just said - you can't label yourself. Label Label Label
You're label-ing yourself with one platform, aren't you?
Users - They do have their hidden or visible accounts (or may open account) on all other chains but they still want to question one's loyalty. Hypocrisy at it's best 🤷
(Please I am not pointing to you - I am talking in general sense)
I am exchanging thoughts to express my GOAL
Contribute to all possible platforms - because in that, users win, platforms win.
It is okay, if you don't want to understand my goal, or don't want to vote me as witness.
Cheers
Have a good one.
doctor is an interesting one in the uk it would be ok because we have one NHS so essentially everyone works under it. In uk no issues and doctors do move around. USA is really complicated and I don't know enough about it but I do know hospitals manage their funding individually and say if you need a heart transplant and are signed to one hospital moving is a complicated issue. USA hospitals are very complicated and you can't just move around like that once you are with one and a lot of it does come down to funding, they are essentially money making businesses as are schools so no it isn't that simple with hospitals either.
absolutely I currently am on steemit and might join serey. I don't think using every platform out there is a problem I just personally believe it is a huge conflict of interests to be a witness on more than one simultaneously. If you left hive and decided to witness blurt tmrw thats different to simultaneously being on two and decisions possibly affecting your other platforms you witness. I think you miss understand my post on labels slightly. it's not a label to say I run a witness on hive, or I run a witness on blurt. The way at least I was describing a label is when someone uses it as a form of identity and puts themselves in a smaller box than they could be in. So if your whole identity was being a hive witness that defo could be a limitation but if you simply are running a hive witness thats just something you are doing with your time. Hope that explains what I meant a bit better.
I leave my foot in the door wherever I can to have inroads to diplomacy and technology share, doesn't mean I have to be active there but always maintaining a "personal embassy" is imo important.
I mean it’s everyoens opinion and who they vote for I’m just saying I personally wouldn’t vote for someone who’s a witness on more than one platform. You can be diplomatic with other platforms without being a witness. Like I said imo. If the majority of voters don’t mind it won’t matter. I do know others who think like me.
Help me understand how. If you are able to convince me, I'll turn off my witness node.
I don't want to convince you to turn it off, because It's not my decision, it is simply my personal preference to only vote for witnesses that are only a witness on one platform. I do believe that because they are all so interlinked and direct competition it's kind of like having the same board of directors between Pepsi and cola or Starbucks and costa. I mean I am sure it does happen but imo I don't think one can be totally none biased should a decisions come up that doing something on a platform might affect another or be in direct competition. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think it's ok being a witness who is more on the dev side who is doing the coding but doesn't actively get involved in decision making whatsoever I guess.
Gotcha! You have some misunderstandings
Let me help you clarify it.
Witnesses don’t do decisions. Witnesses are NOT board of directors. In fact, witnesses are just puppets for investors - e.g. fervi for ctime.
I hope that helps you to get clear picture.
you get to vote on important issues though no? like you all cast a vote if fervi was allowed in a private witness group and are all in a private group no?
Imagine you have a private chat group with your friends & in that I am not allowed.
There could be a private chat group run by ctime, fervi, lucylin, mmmkkkk & in that I am not allowed.
So, witness-private is just similar to that.
Okay. I agree
witness-privatename is confusing.But it is not witness private group - e.g. fervi being in top-5 witness, doesn’t mean that he become part of that chat group.
Read Witness-private as a chat group for - users/investors who are aligned, who are on same page.
The moment someone misbehaves & in not alignments with all other, he/she gets kicked out of that channel.
You can flip the whole table.
E.g. assume you invest $1,000,000 in blurt.
Now you select the witnesses to vote,
You can have your own discord server, start witness private channel there & don’t invite me or anyone else, only add those who are aligning to your thought processes.
Did it help?
now supposing someones vote was influenced by something fervi did on another platform someone was witness of , it all gets messy ... to me at least. I stand by my personal decision that doesn't mean everyone else should do the same.
For your kind info, @megadrive is a hive witness too. Do you think he is also at conflict?
maybe it won't bother some people, it's just my personal opinion it is a big conflict of interest especially considering the nefarious actions that go on on hive, although it could be a conflict of interest on serey. Like what if there was a decision to be made on one platform that could hurt another, how would one vote? Personally I think ppl should only be witness on one platform. But obviously I am not the only voter.
yeah I defo do and he has taken some bad advice from hive watchers before, i haven't voted for him either and it did put me off knowing he was a hive witness.
Consider the Cosmos billion dollar ecosystem of multiple chains, check this out https://mapofzones.com/ there are many chains interconnected with IBC bridges and oftentimes validators(witnesses) validate multiple chains if not all of them and in this ecosystem this is totally acceptable, only the Graphene space has been taught to be tribal, the industry is going multi-chain so I encourage witnesses to witness whatever chains they like, they can even learn new things to apply here.
Well it is tribal and it’s the way it’s become making it to me a conflict of interests. Of course if every single person on these platforms loved sharing, open source and loved seeing the other platforms grow too it might not be so bad but we know that’s not true lol we have people from hive witnesses or I think marky has been one at some point even coming over here and dragging blurt constantly, not that we don’t rlt do the same back but it’s hardly like everyone's caring and sharing lol
Over time they will see the light or get left behind. The world is evolving, we need to interconnect and grow outside of the Graphene bubble, Hive is welcome to evolve and collab with us in future. Crypto is about freedom, including freedom of association.
Freedom of association is very different to being a witness though. It’s sort of like the M.D of renewable energy also being the M.D. of the least ethical oil company in the world.
Not the same imo, see my candidacy example in previous comment. Hive as a technology isn't unethical, just people, there are good people there, the Splinterlands team and community for example, but there are a lot of bullies that make the place undesirable, that I can agree.
I prefer to keep any advantages and bridges I have for strategic and diplomatic reasons. Countries have embassies in other countries even if their policy is different and undesirable. I'm not top20 so not actively governing anything.
The bullies, a lot at least had accounts on steemit long before anyone else was able to register. It’s too engrained. You know what would rlt change hive isn’t ppl contributing to the corrupt ssystem and feeding them all more and more £ is people draining the swamp and pulling out. There are lots of other sites now with same tech that could be worked on. It’s nothint that special. It just has more people developing it cause it’s worth more money. Imo it’s over developed as the general population can just about cash out they don’t know what a layer two token is or care. It’s too complicated for your every day person as it is. It doesn’t need more tech it needs more people lol which they don’t want we then they lose control.
Like I said how can someoen represent two totally opposing morals simultaneously. Like I said below if you are a director for a renewable energy company and you put out an ad about how other sources or energy are causing global warming your directly harming the other company your a director of.
From a technical point of view, I agree with you. Acquiring expertise on several channels is always an advantage for those who want to broaden their technical horizons.
Now, however, the technical space cannot be separated from the social space.
Similarly, if a politician who sits in parliament has shares in an energy company or receives so-called consultancy fees there. And he has a decisive ministerial position in energy supply issues. You can't ignore the fact that such things can lead to conflicts of interest.
For example, if the technician has an opinion on freezing accounts or limiting visibility of individual accounts, or would like to see a downvoting function be part of the system, and receives monetary or intellectual incentives from a competing product to install it for that product here (Blurt) as well, that would be such a classic conflict of interest. As someone who maintains a node and is fit in programming and at the same time holds high stakes in one or more blockchains, he can influence the other witnesses to improve his position. For example, he would be pro downvote if he receives pressure from the other strong players on the competing side to exert his influence on this side, for example. Or, as the recent conflict shows, he would be of the opinion that founding accounts should give up their respective account shares and make them available as a fund.
I suggest a disclaimer on every account of the witnesses, whether they run nodes only on blurt or other blockchains, so the users are informed and in case of having questions about what may be the benefit that this is so. I find open policies always best and appreciate that sagarkothari88 does have no problem in telling so. I am not judging by principle but by case.
Apart from that, interests are always present. It is only natural that everyone has a certain interest in something and it would be utopian to say that one has none.
I would like to ask you if you have ever thought among you witnesses and within governance about not supporting or pushing the term "decentralisation" because it is very misleading and many people seem to think that Blurt is some kind of anarcho-platform. It would be really good if someone who knows about this could write something about DAO on the blurt official page to clear up the misunderstanding that people seem to have on the topic of decentralisation.
I know that you and on the part of the witnesses like to reward postings where technical developments/ improvements are involved. However, I think that those who receive these upvotes also see themselves rewarded for spreading the term "decentralized social media" and I don't think that is wise.
This is factually wrong, because Proof of Stake is, as the name suggests, a transparent and complete accounting proof of all transactions made in the wallet, without the need for an intermediary such as a bank.
People like to confuse it with being a system without regulators and deciders.
If you think about it logically, there can be no sphere without a central form of organisation, because technical features are always added that are programmed into the system. Code, however, is not law. It would only be set if no one complained about anything, if all the functions provided by the system were used by everyone to their full satisfaction and there were no conflicts.
From a marketing point of view,
"decentralisation" may have been a scoop, but as we have all seen, it has caused more trouble than it has benefited, as people either intentionally or unintentionally throw around advertising terms that sound good but are not factually true.
From a PR perspective, I would recommend getting off this misguided bandwagon of "decentralisation" and instead promote the actual benefits of Blurt more prominently, such as the fact that there are no downvotes and no thumbs down here.
It would also be great if the blogger could switch off the comment function, as is now possible on some other platforms. Was this not something you already considered?
Furthermore, I have always wondered why guest comments are not possible from non-account users who simply want to drop by and comment on posts without receiving a vote. Is that technically possible? From my point of view it would increase traffic and even motivate a previous non-account holder to open an account on Blurt. That would express a low barrier.
Like I said everyone chooses who they vote for on their own principles. Isn’t that ok? I personally do not vote for anyone who’s a witness elsewhere especially hive who has to me terrible morals as a platform. We already had some incident with taking advice from hive watchers if I remember.
Hive is fine as a platform technology wise, it’s (some) people that steer it that leave the gaping moral gap, not all of Hive is bad, not all is good. Blurt is mean’t to be good but we have a whale problem too.
You know full well a lot of the whales at hive would love to see blurt sink and would actively find a way to do it if they could easily. They already did theIr best to sabotage vyb because it has no downvotes. To me it’s a big conflict of interests. Like I said my opinion is just that my opinion doesn’t mean everyone thinks the same.
I don’t rly understand how peoples morals allow them to witness on both as if someone doesn’t like the downvoting thing they tend to support the blurt platform but it people like the downvoting system and being able to trash people to 0 for no real reason they like hive. It’s hard to sort or understand how someone can stand for and represent both those cultures and work towards them simultaneously to me.
I mean wasn’t blurt started as a direct option for those who are not happy with how hive is ran and born from discontent. I just don’t rly understand how someone can simultaneously work on both and support them forwards down the same path.
Think of it as running as an opposing candidate, my witness is there if people ever want to vote for a different ethos. I'm not like UPVU who forces Steem witnesses to abandon Blurt, I encourage people to build bridges everywhere, Hive will only improve if good people dilute the bad, not if they all run away. That being said, besides dlease still running on Hive, I don't have any other business interests there.
Lots of the nefarious accounts on hive were started before everyone else even got a chance to register for the site. It’s too engrained. It would take some kind of miracle like Elon musk buying it out to change the system and even then they would just fork a new site lol
Hive isn’t needed all those ppl have options with almost the same tech elsewhere now. People keep funding a corrupt site that’s corrupt to its core because yeah sure it’s money. It would be so easy for me to run a cartoon character account with photography and get a good daily income but morally I can’t
Support a site ran on such values. The thing with being a witness on both is you have to work with these ppl and what if making a decision on one would directly impact the other site. How can one have totallt clean values. Like if you were an M.D. of both renewable energy and oil that’s a conflict of interest that at some point will come up. As an M.D. of oil can you rly be running ads about how everyone should switch to renewable and other sources are destroying the world? When doing so your literally ruining your other project. It’s alnost impossible to purely represent two opposing values simultaneously imo
You don’t need Elon, when I’m a billionaire I’ll be back to liberate Hive.