This might be a better start = https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/distributed-ledger-technology-dlt.asp
crypto = DLT
then unpick each part into its components; and how each can be either controlled or distributed.
I rarely recommend video channels, but Anton is good, and intelligent
look at his shorts.
yeh I like this guy. I think I see the problem now, blurt is trying to mix creatives with techies and mathematicians which I'd say is like trying to mix chalk and cheese. Most of the creatives are happy to leave the details to those who deal with them. It's like the school dance with all the men on one side of the room and all the women on the other and the problem is how to get the dance started.
I think what he says about measure of success and going mainstream is the crux of the matter here. There is much talk of attracting investors and now 'influencers' which is an attempt to go mainstream. I think I can say most people here want nothing to do with mainstream and that's why we are here.
This video helped a lot thanx xx
It's not even as binary as techies v creatives, but also add investors - so have 3 categories that barely overlap. Add to that the issue that all 3 barely-overlapping-categories have the right to an opinion via stake-based voting and you have a tower of Babel, where they will talk across each other. eg basic issue, good quality does not equal high votes.
And that's another deep issue; as soon as you add money to anything the behaviour changes. I suspect that's why the big socmedia sites have held back on monetising behaviour - it will suck! "Suck for a buck" is the reality.
I had started to design something that looks eerily similar to what Hive has been doing - which is to separate the investors from the bloggers, by incentivising HBD. The tweaking of the reward pool was really a test run as everybody else was shit scared it would break! Coders don't know everything - someone who designs an engine might be crap at knowing how the transmission works. lol.
Glad the video helped - keep asking awkward questions ;-)
Thanx, I did think of one question this morning.
When they say 'print blurt' as in printing money what exactly is it they make?
I imagine it's a string of digits for each 'token' each one individual?
When they 'burn' the blurts do they just delete each string of digits?
Yes I think analogies are a very good way of explaining things simply.
I thought of a new one but not sure how accurate it is. Gambling casino chips! Could crypto be compared to those in a way?
lol. I often compare tokens to casino chaips!
many similarities, eg can only be used in that one casino, or possibly one within the same company.
Similarly, the cost of a chip is nominal, merely the cost of manufacture, and not the face value - yet it has the face value while in your "wallet".
Creating coins is just a creation-function based on global-parameters eg how many, when, inflation rate etc.
This ill-fated SMT paper gives you an idea, as setting up an SMT token is quite similar to the underlying STEEM setup.
https://smt.steem.com/smt-whitepaper.pdf
OK good so I'm not crazy then lol. So my staked blurt are kind of shares in Blurt?
this might be of interest
https://forkast.news/defi-real-estate-revolution-tokenization-rise/
yes seems my casino chips were right. Means I am understanding.
I hope his series of articles is more interesting.
I found he started going into "naive territory", in that the ideals of tokenisation are ignored on a daily basis by both malicious and plain bad code, and poorly designed algorithms.
Maybe this is the end of the beginning - time to grow up!
no, no, no... you can't call them that - they are stakes!
lmfao
like the difference between a race and a people.
But yeah - shares - the difference is that shares in most companies are fixed and require special resolutions to change that. It does happen that new shares are created. In most crypto, the shares/coins are created algorithmically - this does not happen with corporate shares - not yet.
right lol
The trouble with separating 'investors' from bloggers is the lines have already been blurred here. We are ALL investors here. Everyone who stakes is an investor. Never underestimate the small investments from people who care about Blurt as opposed to those who just want to see its (in their eyes) success.
Like the video said we need to change our view of 'success'. It's not just about money.
It remains a major flaw of DPOS - and something even Dan hasn't solved. Not that I expect him to, just that he's had more years to think about it.
Who's Dan?
Larimer