>In the comments below. No offense will be taken to anything said.

Nice Post!!

Thanks.

Well, we all yelled for a couple of years there "Steemit is not Steem".

Meaning either the company Steemit Inc. or the website, steemit . com , which ever of the two was applicable to the context of the conversation.

Time to understand what it was that everyone kept saying and yelling!

Note: Replying to the general topic of "Vision".

Turned out that Steemit was Steem as they held the trademark.

This is largely backend and aspects to be used to facilitate frontend development.

Yeah, turned out that way.

But that wasn't the point of the comment. Thinking out of the box, the box that we maliciously got put into by some bad actors in the Steem days.

We are not limited to any one niche, we are not limited to any one line of business, we are not limited to any one identity deciding on the future of people with dreams and real ideas.

It is a FREE & OPEN market.

Open to one and all.

We can all finally start putting things in their place:

Data storage.
Finances (economy).
Blochchain development.

All are interlocked, yet all are individual branches of business and our ecosystem.

We can't let one stop the other two, no matter which of the three we are talking about.

Hence, why I reminded everyone about the old saying "steemit .com is not Steem"!

I think the focus on just the development of the chain alone is terrible for the future and lacks some vision of what is to come.

Security is a must. Any disputing that is nonsensical.

The development of things which run on the chain or industries which can be attracted to the chain. Great.

Expansion or scalability of the chain another thing that offers advantages. Layers can help with that.

Moving away from just blogging different software's or apps that run on the chain, Great again.

But there is not just the chain being there to consider.
There is also HIVE and HBD more importantly the value they hold.

Not only do we have to look at an attack on the chain itself. But attacks against the currency/tokens that are the main token.
All other tokens can be what they are Such as Starbits from https://www.risingstargame.com/ or DEC from https://splinterlands.com or any other game and token created to run along side the chain or on it.

A mass dumping of HBD or HIVE can have a negative effect too. this is something which I have been thinking at since I came to the crypto world.

It is not too far to stretch the mind and consider that further down the timeline, another source may appear and use the code developed by the dev's at present and offer a better service and rewards to the community, Simply by the value the reward is worth.

Dapps apps the user base will move to where the rewards for time is better. Yes die hards will stay with the chain. Visibility of the chain would decrease in such an event though.

I see a few things getting done or not getting done that have a negative effect. These seem to be ignored because of who is or is not doing them.

In theory, HIVE listed on many exchanges and aiming to be listed on more has a negative effect. Using Bittrex (an exchange I know is fairly big) and having HIVE listed there gives awareness to the token. After that getting the coin to other large exchanges reduces the value of having the coin on Bittrex. The token on multiple large exchanges reduces the amount of traffic the coin will have on all of them, making it less valuable to the exchanges it is on. Less transactions made on each chain is less they profit from it and a higher risk of them removing it.

But those types of views do not want to be listened to or talked about.

The reward curve giving advantage to higher HP users also needs to revert back to the linear curve. Giving everyone equal opportunity and not advantage of outcome to those with higher HP.

A focus on the value of both HIVE and HBD needs to be looked at too. Something I have voiced for coming up to three years now.

> The reward curve giving advantage to higher HP users also needs to revert back to the linear curve. Giving everyone equal opportunity and not advantage of outcome to those with higher HP.

At odds with this, my time here has shown a greater commitment to the network, as the authors increase their HP. Why reward those who only want to profit from speculation?

Why tax those who create content with a low HP

Users aren't rewarded for their posts based on their owned HP. Their HP has nothing to do with how they are rewarded for their posts and comments, it only relates to their curation in conjunction with earning.

So they are taxed on curation.
Had this discussion with eonwarped who I believe had input on the new rewarding system and he agreed by the end lower based HP levels lose out.
While 50% of the reward now goes to curators giving a greater reward% from a post to curators. Reward levels are based on the HP Taxing low level users.

Example. Prior to the change from the linear curve. I had a vote of 0.02c With a purchase of €400 I doubled my stake. The change to the reward happened and I was back to providing a 0.02c reward. The value of the token at the time was still the same, there was no value drop.

Maybe a post is not the best place to go to a discussion.

Taxation refers to the payment of something. When a person curates, they are not paying anything. You're right, this isn't the best place to discuss the curve. Its something that would be specific to individual HFs. Discussions around the curve should be addressed during HF discussions, when changes may be acted on. It would also be interesting to see some modeling of different curves if anyone has some time and expertise.

I paid for HP. The reward my HP gives has been reduced. The rewards those with higher increased. I paid I am taxed. Linear curve, Equal rewards based on HP.

The government related language that was highly promoted in the original Steem whitepaper by Larimer is all but gone and definitely not a part of Hive (think decentralization). But as not to drag this out, let's restart in a HF post.

Yes, security is key. It needs to be addressed in a future document.

This document is purely to do with the technical aspects of chain progress and related. It's not for anything outside of the immediate development of the chain and other services. You're thinking more along the lines of a Roadmap, which is not yet set down on paper.

If we end up with several token-creation options down the line, all the better. That means we'll be able to include and onboard more dapps that can pick which option suits them the most. Some may be a managed solution, some unmanaged, so on.

The problem with reducing the number of exchange listings is that every exchange has different KYC requirements, different data storage requirements, different target demographic, and different levels of trust. If you're listed on let's say two and suddenly they require full KYC, everyone who wishes to stay anonymous is out. If they suddenly shut down or have service issues, no one can trade. If they delist, you have no listings. Redundancy through distribution is critical. I get what you're trying to say.

The reward curve is an ongoing issue. It's not suitable for this type of document. This is a very niche document.

> The top two skillsets for blockchain entrepreneurs, in order: Technology development. Community development. That’s it.

I appreciate your work on Technology development of our Hive

Thank you, but its a massive group effort.

>The document will be used as a one-sheet statement piece and potentially leveraged for marketing purposes. This is aimed at developers but can be paraphrased for non-technical readers.

Alrighty. Been clamoring for this left and right.
Thats the first step. Second step is to condense it into a easily spread message and broadcast it.

>First and second layer of plugins that allow for functionality without adding bulk to the blockchain itself.

I feel this is a very important point that needs to be expanded on. If you feel this document is not the place for it, id like to see a more comprehensive breakdown and comparison to industry standards and why this solution is superior.
Im not talking a post or a github document but rather places like Hive.io or hiveonboarding.

>SMTs and similar would go here.

Im personally not happy with the lack of mention of SMTs. I feel theyre an essential tool to achieve this vision and should get a line of their own in there.

Sidenote:

The thing devs need to understand is that PRICE is a huge factor when it comes to survival of a project. In the simplest of ways put:
"If you dont built that which directly creates demand in economic terms for the token (especially a inflationary one) but focus mostly on creating convenience there wont be monies for you to get payed."

It wont matter how convenient it is to build a dapp on HIVE if the price is 0.
Every system needs to create a incentive to buy HIVE. Otherwise, in that sense, what can happen is that a system can be "useful" and "worthless" at the same time.

All of the documents that then can go to Hive.io or any other website or info point need a start, so I'm aiming to start them off in the Github. They can then be taken and incorporated into marketing, into websites, into whatever the community sees fit. I'm thinking the Tech Vision can go as infographics.

> more comprehensive breakdown and comparison to industry standards and why this solution is superior

This is an excellent idea. It will have to wait until the whitepaper is finalized.

Regarding SMTs, we may very well see an expansion of this concept. They're not thee focal point because we do have more to offer than tokens, but they're a key point. At the same time, we don't want to go around yelling SMTs like the pre-fork teams did because that's not the one deliverable. Optimization and comprehensive libraries, for example, make the chain far more attractive to build on than any SMT ever will. This goes towards your mention of price. If the cost of development is reduced due to a reduction of complexity, the price naturally becomes less of a factor.

>They can then be taken and incorporated into marketing, into websites, into whatever the community sees fit.

Yes... Again i want to emphasize that the top couple stakeholders need to push that forth. Nothing happens simply because its a good idea.

>Regarding SMTs, we may very well see an expansion of this concept.

Awesome. The thing about SMTs is that they were a acknowledged and relatively understood concept by most of the community. It wasnt because Steemit.inc did a good job at relaying the message, but rather out of community despair and a need to search for a "savior". SMTs were just that. People understood that concept because they needed to hang on to a hope, something that would change everything for the better.
Steem before the end was a desperate time, something everyone was so fast to forget.
Thats why i implore you guys to expand on that topic and realize it in the same sense it was realized by the community in the time during the Steemit episode.
We havent managed to shed the Steem legacy just yet.

The rest i wont comment on. We wont agree, but i really dont want to steer the convo in that direction because it wont lead to anything concrete and i dont want that because "concrete" is what we need now.

I saw what you said on Twitter to that regard. It's getting pushed out, just not as quickly as it would be if it was a corporate entity pushing it. Once this document here is finalized, we need to still pretty it up and only then can stakeholders or whomever has pull elsewhere put it out.

I agree on the SMTs and on the previous state of Steem. It's getting done and it will be done. @blocktrades is the best person to speak on these further, but he did put most of his ideas on paper in that post I linked in the main post above. Right now we're at the part where optimization and basic controls must be put in place and then we can innovate. Kind of how when you buy a house you got to get the subfloor fixed and only then you can start installing the granite countertop.

>Diverse libraries maintained by a group of decentralized developers.

This sounds a bit odd to me. I guess the idea is to express that the structure in which the developers operate is decentralized, not the developers themselves. I would therefore rephrase in the direction of:

Diverse libraries maintained by a _decentralized network (OR group OR community) of developers._

Thanks for working on this!

I see what you're saying, duly noted, changed the Github version.

will the other whitepaper be added to hive.io ?

Once its done, it will be.

Thanks for dealing with all this stuff!

Congratulations @guiltyparties! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Your post got the highest payout of the day

You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

HiveBuzz Ranking update - New key indicators