Read these FAQ's to know basics of Blurt and once you finish reading it please write a post, tag me with any further questions you have and I'll be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability and knowledge.
https://wallet.blurt.live/faq.html
Thanx I'd never seen these faqs before and the majority of it I kinda worked out myself or from other users but this bit was useful
Altho then it goes on to say Proof of work is not actually used on blurt.
I have an issue with going to discord for info on blurt as I got a strike on there simply for being in a certain group which was thrown off there. Nothing to do with Blurt BTW a totally different censored site.
My particular questions, apart from the witness one, can't be answered by a faq bot post but it is useful for complete newbs.
I don't want to write a post about it either, plenty of people have that posting niche, not my thang. This post was a one-off to deal with a personal attack from one of your 'promoted content-creators' which makes it look to all and sundry as if Blurt condones this kind of post attacking 2 women on Blurt.
Attacked by a post that never even mentions you, "personally attacked".
You have been impressed by the packaging of the respective advertising messages of the crypto-based channels. In advertising, it is the case that it only emphasises the positive features of a product and leaves aside those that cause controversy or are perceived as negative. Lucy has worked himself up over the fact that these advertising promises have not been fulfilled.
Yet the very word "proof of stake" says it all. If you want to transfer technical explanations, which are not wrong, to the social aspects, it becomes different, even wrong. Those with the highest stakes determine the functions and governance of the blockchain/blogosphere. That is a fact. That is not going to change. Can you be okay with that?
The majority in the witness circle has the final say in the internal witness votes. The highest ranking witnesses can vote against or in favour of changes/implementations in votes and they are of course subject to opinion, like any human being. There is no such thing as a just code. There are only seamless data blocks that show transparency of transactions made, i.e. like a tax report where the stake is proven. Think of it as an accounting system that is almost unbreakable/unhackable (but not impossible).
Think of this sphere like a public limited company where the shareholders have voting rights according to the amount of their shares. There is nothing decentralized about this in the sense of those who hold no shares or only such small shares that their votes hardly carry any weight in terms of their financial power. The common man therefore only has the possibility to offer his view of things to those who provide the governance through argumentation and participation in the processes.
As long as you have diplomatic skills, staying power, patience and an understanding of this form of existence, you can influence governance. If you want to have a much greater say in the fate of the system, you will have to buy large parts of the currency.
You will hardly impress someone with being interested in your stance if you do not have enough expertise and professionalism at his level of knowledge. He will not take you seriously. Similarly, if you have to deal with someone who is not knowledgeable within your largest area of expertise and has, from your point of view, naïve interjections. It would of course be desirable to treat everyone with patience and understanding. Since no one can always do that, we have conflicts.
The advertising is unfortunately very misleading, for example the term "decentralised" is used inflationarily and is confused with a governmentless sphere. This can be seen as not entirely clean, but I mean, who in the modern world really believes in the truthfulness of advertising? You certainly don't, so why should it be any different here?
You are the voice of reason mrs erh. I am NOT looking to get involved in the politics of blurt. As you point out I'm clearly not cut out for it neither do I want to LOL. I only comment on these things from a personal perspective when something affects me personally as in this case of a whole post dedicated to mocking me for putting my personal perspective and asking questions.
I am happy to leave the workings of administrating blurt to others of course but they need to be transparent and unbiased.
Also if Blurt doesn't do what it says on the tin then change the advert or change the modus operandii so they match rather that contradict. The contradictions lead to confusion and a feeling of being duped.
I have commented on megadrives reply to a dev, and copy you some of it in here - the whole comment you can see here.
Oh I love the guests commenting idea, that would be a boon for me. I had to mute someone the other day for posting so many silly comments on my post. Even tho it looks good on a counter it looks terrible to outsiders coming in to read. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily stop all comment personally (I love the comments section) but can control who can and can't comment by muting? Or did I get that wrong too?
I think a wide variation of ways to manage your blog is always good. If I want to have a publication without comments because I won't have time to respond to comments, for example. Or because the controversy of the topic is assessed by me in such a way that I prefer to do without a possibly highly emotional comments section. I prefer to decide by single blog posts which way to go.
I can't say much about the muting function because I only muted someone back in the early days of Steemit. I don't have any experience with it here, but personally I don't do it because I think everything can be clarified for me in another way or I simply ignore what I can't stand or handle.
I have muted baah because he does not bring anything to the table and his behavior is almost always aggressive and obnoxious but I'm wondering if his comments can be seen by everyone else? Do you see them on here? He's still commenting away.
What do you think?
I think transparency is good, but it only goes so far. Both are necessary, on the one hand that the blogger proactively informs himself and understands the sphere here in its basic functions, on the other hand that the witnesses make themselves transparent and keep one informed, if possible in a language that the non-technical person understands.
Impartiality, I think only Buddhist monks get that right (LOL) or other saints. Everyone else has bias, you, me and the rest of the unholy ;-)
No of course we can't get rid of bias but what I meant was not to shout out their biased comments and views using their status as backing. If you get my drift.
A bit like politicians who give us one rule but another for themselves or simply flout their own rules because they can.
If you examine your sentence, you may find that the second part contradicts the first. If we don't get rid of bias, then biased comments and views happen. That is a happening without end. Each one of us has limitations and each one of us has blind spots. If it were otherwise, there would be no conflicts and animosities. You don't want anyone to be prejudiced against you, that's quite clear. Your counterpart doesn't want that either. But it happens. And when it happens, it leads to conflict - at times very intense ones. It is inevitable.
If you observe other people from a third position, you have probably experienced that you recognise two positions that do not move away from the one expressed. But you see others and you see possible alternatives. Sometimes you say something about it, sometimes you leave it alone. Depending on the situation.
It is easy to agree and to like each other. It is also easy to disagree but difficult to still like each other. But that's the point in having meaningful relationships. I think. When I can accept that, it becomes easy again :)
No I meant making a post with a badge saying 'promoted content creator' is using a kind of status symbol to give his statements more validity to the 3rd parties. His point of view is automatically accepted as true because he is perceived as being backed by authority. I'm not talking about just comments on a post. He could have dealt with this in his own comments but he chose to go public and use his 'badge'.
I can only speak for myself and sometimes this opinion is shared by others and sometimes not. I never noticed the sticker (maybe it's not even on the frontend I see), it does not trigger me in any way. Now that you focused on that sticker, it still does not speak to me. I prefer staying indifferent to those badges.
Someone possesses authority in certain areas and there I can listen, or respect, or accept it as valid. In other areas I do not find it in the same person. So I really do like to not care about badges or titles or whatever people are endowed with. I like to go by the individual and single encounter. By case and moment. The same person can at times be idiotic and brilliant. It really depends.
For the badges - it's just a kind of advertisement (how I see it):
Imagine that you think you have a good idea and want to highlight other bloggers. You programme a badge or sticker that you henceforth give (by automation) to those who you think generally publish good content. Anyone who can programme something like this can do it. So you are one who makes such a private initiative. That's what it was.
On Steemit and Hive, this kind of thing has been done by the hundreds.
The views on automated actions have always been controversial. On the one hand, they have advantages because manual work is saved, but on the other hand, they have the disadvantage that - once set up - the programme runs for itself.
Mostly you can bet that the enthusiasm for such a thing is flattening and the initiators forget or no longer feel like updating the whole thing. Which can be critisized. For me, it's just not important enough even to critisize it.
Lucy had, by the way, admitted that he was wrong about this sticker, thinking it was initiated from mega.
Do you think people care about those stickers if they read through a blogpost? They will make their inner judgements on its contents. They may only refer to the part of the content which speaks to them and to the rest they may remain silent. Which is alright. Let people decide for themselves how they perceive something, is my motto.
Otherwise, if an audience lets itself be impressed by stickers or whatever signs I would not want to have them urgently as my audience, would you?
He didn't mock you. But then again you take criticism even as its stripped of naming you once, as a personal attack. Instead of recognizing criticism for what it is you'd rather lie and pretend.