"the Hive blockchain", "the Hive blockchain", "the Hive blockchain"...

[IMAGE: https://images.hive.blog/DQmVYapmdKXb5nf19dbx7Ngqmb3CoHJRPsi2DazT4pzAb2f/Capture.JPG]

This is looking really good.

Thank you.

Replying to all comments to acknowledge.

You logical approach makes it present in a very logical & simple manner.
My doubts regarding Steem were in regards to the fact it was token in nature & reliant on those at the top remaining committed. It always felt like it was centralised.

My issue with Hive is that the mirroring of value, which itself I have no problem with, it is just that those at the top can also muscle decisions. Again, it is only a problem if they choose to dictate advantage to themselves.

As we saw in the Stemmit Ninja Grab, there are people who have levers that can be pulled. It relies upon Ethical conduct.

Thank you for your open dialogue & your article regarding the tone of the Steem whitepaper was very good reading.

Key word for subsequent documentation:
> ethical conduct

Noted, thank you for your comment.

> V.3. Communities

> It is important to note that communities do not generate monetary rewards for their owners and organizers; their value is a purely qualitative improvement to the user experience.

Are you sure that is correct? I have a community, the owner account of the community has a wallet, I sent it 5 HP and delegated to it, have used it to test vote and have earned a reward:

[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/bashadow/4o6GjCSU-com20wallet.png]

There is a community account which can function like any other account does, but that's not what the paper is referring to. In the original design specs, community owners were intended to be able to set a reward beneficiary percentage to the community account. So a community could take 5% of all the rewards generated within the community for example. I'd been under the impression that these sorts of monetization tools were still in the works. I'd be more curious if this callout in the whitepaper means that intent is no longer there.

The way I understood it a hive-#00000 account is a community account. Right now there does not seem to be any difference between my test community (Just Because), and OCD or GEMS. If I log in my community account as @hive-185849 I can vote, tip and delegate, any votes/comments would say @hive-185849. And the paper did state that:
> The naming of communities is not exclusive and multiple communities may have the same or similar names; their base account is set by a hive-000000 name-number naming convention

So a fix I think is needed for the V.3 communities section, or at least some clarification on the monetized or not monetized standing.

The whitepaper so far states and aims to state that when a 'community' account (hive-#) is created, it is the same at its core as any other account. The hive-000000 account I use as an example is mine that I will never use, thus making it a safe example. It's clear by the discussion here that further explanation must be added in regards to community accounts, how they're used, what they do, etc. It may even be a question as to whether further documentation that's specific to these is needed.

I will circle back to this comment thread once addressed.

Is the description of the DHF voting accurate? I had always thought that it was functionally similar to witness voting and full stake was applied to all votes. The whitepaper describes a dilution of stake across multiple votes. (that is actually the system I’d prefer for DHF and witness voting... but wasn’t aware of either being changed)

You are correct, it works similar to witness voting and full stake applies to all votes.

Thank you @guiltyparties for this post. I love Hive, Latex, and whitepapers 😄

Cheers!

Thanks.

Replying to all comments to acknowledge.

Has anyone started working on a german translation already?

@satren wenn er die Zeit übrig hat?

Werde mich nächste Woche dran setzen, dann hab ich endlich wieder Zeit.

Once the Whitepaper is completed we will ask for translations. For now, it is not worth dedicating time to translating.

1. Introduction

>"... distributing a fraction of the inflation..."

Suggest avoiding the negative connotation of fraction, by using 'distributing some...' or 'a portion'.

>" To earn without investment..."

I suggest rephrasing this. 'Users earn...' , or 'without financial investment...' I find the first far preferable personally.

>"... retains it original..."

Should be 'its'. Also, there are exceptions to the integrity of the blockchain, and it is meet to disclose them early. The appearance of presenting biased information should be avoided to the degree possible.

1.1 The Value of Hive

>"3. ...pairs on myriad exchanges."

Myriad was used in the previous section. I suggest 'many' or 'several' here, as Myriad has more impact in it's prior use.

>"4. Unlimited opportunities ..."

I suggest 'extraordinary opportunities". It has more impact IMHO, and nothing is unlimited.

I.2 Background

>"...artificially-disproportionate..."

Awkward, and raises questions about substantial stake held by ninjaminers as well. Disproportionate suffices IMHO.

II.2 Bandwidth and Resource Credits

>"...the associate bandwidth..."

Associated.

>".... Credits of account that are displayed as mana."

'...of the account, displayed as mana.'

>"...that hence have 0 HP..."

Hence is unnecessary, extraneous, and will likely reduce comprehension.

>"...may still issue transactions, although the number of transactions is small and varies..."

'...may still issue limited transactions that vary...'

II.3 Delegation

>"...but in contrast no longer amounts towards their bandwidth..."

'but no longer counts towards...'

>"The significance of the stake is retained by the delegation originator."

'Ownership of the stake is retained by the delegator.'

II.4. Allocation and Initial Supply, Inflation and End Supply

>"...PoS theory..."

'DPoS theory' or 'Proof of Stake theory' does not also mean Piece of Shit theory.

>"...accounts, excepted those who..."

'except those that'

>"...self-reducing inflation..."

'decreasing inflation'

>"... translates to a downward pressure on minting."

'...reduces minting over time."

>"The inflation rate decreases with every 250,000 blocks by 0.01%, which is app..."

'The inflation rate decreases 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, app..."

>"When a user opts to support a number of proposals, their stake is divided amongst the proposals equally. Should they support only one proposal, their stake will remain concentrated.This prevents one single large stakeholder from influencing the remuneration of numerous proposals and creates a level playing field."

I am surprised by this, as I thought DHF voting worked the same as witness voting. Please confirm. If this is correct, lemme be the first to recommend the same protection given to development funding be applied to governance by mirroring this voting mechanism for witnesses.

>"The DHF is funded by a 10% portion of the overall inflation."

The previous section provided this information, but if you want to repeat it...

'10% of overall inflation funds the DHF.'

III. BLOCK PRODUCTION, SIGNING AND CONSENSUS

III.1.1. Addressing 51% Attacks

>"A 51% attack can occur on a DPoS blockchain when a single stakeholder takes control of 51% or more of staked assets."

This is not factually correct. Simply controlling the assets isn't an attack, nor are such attacks limited to single stakeholders.

>"... Steem blockchain orchestrated by the founding company Steemit Inc through unprecedented collusion."

'Steem blockchain committed by the founding company Steemit Inc.'

>"...any plausible signs of same..."

'such attacks.'

>"Should one stakeholder gain considerable stake on Hive, other stakeholders will amplify their own stake. Decentralization ensures that no one stakeholder may hold other stakeholders under direct control.This will continuously result in the application of the Balance of Power where no one stakeholder may gain irreversible supremacy."

Strike. Unnecessary, speculative, and impossible to guarantee. Will generate internal arguments against it in the reader. It kinda sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.

There's also no point in advertising specifics of your defenses to attackers unless they are features, which vows aren't.

II.2. Protocol Changes

>"Hardforks and key protocol changes must be accepted by 17 out of 20 consensus witnesses who accept or reject code changes by upgrading their nodes. Protocol changes will not be applied and take effect until this consensus is reached. "

'Hardforks are accepted by 17 of 20 consensus witnesses upgrading their nodes to new protocols.'

The potential exists for attacks by rebel consensus block producers, that post blocks out of consensus, to actually implement protocols or transactions on a limited basis, although I am not competent to more specifically address this issue. @edicted posted regarding this issue during the Steem debacle, and if you seek more information he may be able to elucidate.

>" The block will be signed but the witness itself will be recorded on chain as have missed a block."

Reduce ambiguity please.

>"Missed blocks do not impact the blockchain in any significant ways and are thus not an exploitable attack vector."

Please very carefully consider this statement with an eye to decreasing apparent certainty regarding exploits. Maybe only adding the word 'expected' is necessary, but I highly recommend appearing to err on the side of prudence and diligence, rather than complacency and confidence.

III.6. Keys

II.6.1. Key Hierarchy

>"A default Signing Key may be broadcast to disable a witness."

This requires further explanation. Who can broadcast such a key and when? The discussion of Signing Keys is generally in need of expansion. How do witnesses 'use their accounts' to generate such keys, for example.

IV.3. Endusers and Consumers

>"No initial investment is required on behalf of an account holder to participate in Hive and by extension to use any of the dapps connected to or built on Hive."

This is technically correct and accurately worded, but I think you can add more impact.

'With a free Hive account users can begin earning rewards and transacting immediately.' or some such. It might bear mentioning that by investing in Hive users can increase their RC's, curation rewards, and attract more attention to their accounts with their upvotes.

V. ECOSYSTEM GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION

V.1. Onboarding and Accounts

>"...the account creation is decentralized."

Strike 'the'.

>"An existing Hive account is required to create a new Hive account."

'Hive accounts create new Hive accounts, which can then be provided to new users when they join Hive.'

>"... stole password."

Stolen

>" This is instrumental in ensuring a positive and accessible onboarding and initial experience process for new users."

'This provides a positive...' or 'enables'a positive....

>"... never dabbled in cryptocurrencies or are familiar with blockchain..."

'...or are unfamiliar...'

>"New users are not mandated..."

'required', or 'New users don't need'

>"Anyone may register any username they wish of any length and quality as long as the name is between three and 16 characters in length and adheres to minor special character constraints."

Add 'as available' or 'unless someone already used that name.' or words to that effect.

V.2. Censorship Resilience by Design

>"... that is upkept by a diverse set of autonomously-operated servers..."

'that is maintained by a diverse set of autonomous servers'

>"All transactions entered onto the Hive blockchain have the element of finality and once confirmed in its three-second blocks, are irreversibly signed. Altering the content of those transactions and blocks is not possible. Therefore, taking the default unalterability into account, no content on the Hive blockchain may be censored or altered in any way,shape or form"

'Every three seconds new blocks are issued, and transactions are signed onto the Hive blockchain once confirmed in a in a block.'

Code is infinitely mutable. 17 consensus witnesses can censor anything they want. Best to not pretend that isn't true.

'Only a supermajority of 17 of the 20 consensus witnesses can alter data once it's signed onto the blockchain.' or something, is certainly appropriate, and factually correct.

V.3. Communities

>"A community is an account that is also set as a category for the content published in it. Upon its creation, a new account is generated and is then granted a modifiable label to display on the frontends."

I find this generates questions about the limitations on community accounts. Can community accounts post, hold tokens, vote, flag, create accounts, and etc. How do members affect community accounts, and what affects do community accounts have on members, or non-members? Please ensure all such questions are answered.

>"...the one with the highest rate of user engagement will dominate..."

How is this measured, and what does 'domination' entail?

>" It is important to note that communities do not generate monetary rewards for their owners and organizers; their value is a purely qualitative improvement to the user experience."

I hope that the previous suggestion of answering questions community accounts bring up makes this language obsolete, as I don't really know specifically what it means in terms of inflation, posting, rewards and etc.

V.4. Qualitative Content-based Inputs

>"...that is distinctly human."

Strike. Do mention apps and games, please.

>"...the two mainstay contribution options are the contribution of content and the contribution of content discovery."

Please find a way to say this without using contribution three times in one sentence.

V.5. Content Monetization

>"...approximated..."

No. Make the bad word go away please. There is certainly a more concise way to state the entire sentence with that word in it. The word 'subjective' probably belongs in that more concise sentence.

>"... as the same contributors are also consumers."

'...as most contributors...'

Add 'and some only consume.' or something.

V.6. Distributing Currency Rewards

I question the inclusion of the word 'currency' above. Please give it thought.

>"The reward pool is used to distribute funds..."

'65% of inflation is distributed as rewards through the rewards pool.'

>"... participate in the creation of content and its curation."

'...participate in creation and/or curation of content."

>"The reward pool is filled out of 65% of the inflation."

Strike

VI. CONCLUSION

>"...an ever-evolving..."

I think 'a constantly evolving' fits better here. It's less alliterative, and therefore it sounds more grounded.

>"...fuel the mass adoption of cryptocurrency as an industry."

'...fuel mass adoption of all cryptocurrencies by introducing new people to Hive.', or 'fuel mass adoption of cryptocurrencies by serving as a gateway' to new users, or just 'fuel mass adoption of cryptocurrencies.' This reduces the passive voice which makes the statement more affirmative.

>"...designed with widespread mass adoption..."

'designed to scale with widespread adoption' or 'mass adoption'. One adjective is enough, and two sounds grasping. Scale is a good buzzword.

>"When combined with the..."

'Incorporating...' or 'By combining...'

Overall a well and professionally written introduction to Hive.

I hope my own annoyance at being edited is not experienced by you at my comment. I usually went through all seven stages of grief every time the least jot and tittle were questioned before I improved my writing with many of the suggested edits.

Despite any offense you may feel, I assure you my only intent here was to add what little I might to your substantial and professional body of work. Know that I approach editing as brainstorming, and seek only to suggest how you can improve your product, rather than dictate text at all.

I hope I've been of service.

Thanks!

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/iflagtrash/uI8mYtNq-innerhive-warning.gif

This seems to be outdated.

Thank you, the detail is much appreciated. I will follow up in 3 days.

Your corrections are highly valuable and I take no offense to them. I'll be commenting below as I include them. This is for my own records and to show what was actioned.

> Suggest avoiding the negative connotation of fraction, by using 'distributing some...' or 'a portion'.

✓

> ... or 'without financial investment...' I find the first far preferable personally.

✓

> Should be 'its'.

✓

> Also, there are exceptions to the integrity of the blockchain, and it is meet to disclose them early. The appearance of presenting biased information should be avoided to the degree possible.

"Integrity" refers to the state of the non-alterable data and finality. Can you please expand on what you mean by your statement?

> Myriad was used in the previous section. I suggest 'many' or 'several' here, as Myriad has more impact in it's prior use.

Good catch, changed to "many" as per your suggestion. ✓

> I suggest 'extraordinary opportunities". It has more impact IMHO, and nothing is unlimited.

x
Extraordinary is not a good fit as then what is ordinary?

> Disproportionate suffices IMHO.

✓

> Associated.

✓

> '...of the account, displayed as mana.'

✓

> Hence is unnecessary, extraneous, and will likely reduce comprehension.

Good point. ✓

> '...may still issue limited transactions that vary...'

✓

> 'but no longer counts towards...'

✓

> Ownership of the stake is retained by the delegator.

✓

> 'DPoS theory' or 'Proof of Stake theory' does not also mean Piece of Shit theory.

True. ✓

> 'except those that'

✓

More coming ...

The most likely failure of data integrity on Hive is the same as it is on Steem: 17 consensus witnesses can censor anything they want.

Otherwise, generally, failure happens. It's just unrealistic to claim something is failure proof, and generates skepticism. Better language would simply state that data integrity is a primary purpose of the blockchain, and every effort has been, and will be, undertaken to maintain data integrity.

People know things can fail, and trying to claim something cannot fail, or even implying it, sounds disingenuous. It's much better to not leave readers feeling even the least bit skeptical of claims in the white paper, even if the language isn't the most powerful promotion of Hive that could be phrased. The most important sense readers should have is of the integrity with which Hive is discussed. That creates strong confidence in the audience.

The ability of the witnesses to alter the blockchain is undeniable, and it has happened on Steem, so there isn't any good reason to imply it can't happen.

Editing is difficult, for both editors and authors. I am glad to see my thoughts have been useful to you in your task.

Edit: regarding 'extraordinary', different authors write differently, and use different words. All I can do to be of assistance to you is make suggestions. This is your work, and will be in your voice. Unlimited is not the best word here IMHO, because it seems over the top, making promises Hive can't deliver.

I am glad you aren't just going to let me dictate to you, because that's not at all what I want. Use the right word for your voice, even if it's unlimited. It's a small thing to be judged by me. Your judgment is what matters.

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/iflagtrash/uI8mYtNq-innerhive-warning.gif

Additional Note: https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@hivewatcher/qdxkc0

I still have to finish up with the list of your suggestions. I stopped halfway yesterday to get the Tech Vision doc out.

How would you define "integrity"?

In this context, it would be immutability. Extant data is the same data that was originally provided the blockchain, plus new data. The old data hasn't been altered or removed.

https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/iflagtrash/uI8mYtNq-innerhive-warning.gif

Additional Note: https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@hivewatcher/qdxkc0

Getting back to this now and incorporating the remainder of your input. Had to stop half way before.

> 'decreasing inflation'

✓

> '...reduces minting over time."

✓

> 'The inflation rate decreases 0.01% every 250,000 blocks, app..."

✓

> I am surprised by this, as I thought DHF voting worked the same as witness voting.

It was poorly written. It is not the same as witness voting as there is no ordering function. I've expanded on the information and corrected/clarified it.

> The previous section provided this information

Originally, when that line was put in, there was an additional paragraph there that was removed.

> This is not factually correct.

Clarified this point some. It is correct should the stakeholder be malicious. This is obviously not always the case. A colluding group of stakeholders would qualify under this as a group becomes a single entity upon forming. Too deep for the whitepaper ...

> 'Steem blockchain"

✓

> 'such attacks.'

✓

> Strike. Unnecessary, speculative, and impossible to guarantee.

I will defer to you on this as I've written that passage with due bias and the desire to include the balance of power in the whitepaper.

> The potential exists for attacks by rebel consensus block producers, that post blocks out of consensus, to actually implement protocols or transactions on a limited basis ..

No, that will cause forks. It was thoroughly tested.

> Reduce ambiguity please.

Done. Another poorly written passage where it came out backwards.

> Please very carefully consider this statement with an eye to decreasing apparent certainty regarding exploits.

The statement was originally added to prevent harassment of witnesses who miss blocks. Removing it entirely as there are better ways to control speculation and in-fighting among newer witnesses.

(to be continued)

I am glad I sought clarification on the above because I have learned from it. I look forward to reading the edited piece.

Thanks!

V.3. Communities

> "A community is an account that is also set as a category for the content published in it. Upon its creation, a new account is generated and is then granted a modifiable label to display on the frontends."
I find this generates questions about the limitations on community accounts. Can community accounts post, hold tokens, vote, flag, create accounts, and etc. How do members affect community accounts, and what affects do community accounts have on members, or non-members? Please ensure all such questions are answered.

Added somewhat to it. A community account is the same as any other account.

> How is this measured, and what does 'domination' entail?

Added some to it. Getting into measurement is a frontend question that would take away from the whitepaper.

> I hope that the previous suggestion of answering questions community accounts bring up makes this language obsolete, as I don't really know specifically what it means in terms of inflation, posting, rewards and etc.

They can be used as regular accounts but usually aren't. They don't by default make money but could. There are creative ways to use them.

> V.4. Qualitative Content-based Inputs
Strike. Do mention apps and games, please.

Done.

> Please find a way to say this without using contribution three times in one sentence.

Haha done.

> V.5. Content Monetization
"...approximated..."
No. Make the bad word go away please. There is certainly a more concise way to state the entire sentence with that word in it. The word 'subjective' probably belongs in that more concise sentence.

Replaced with 'subjective'.

> Add 'and some only consume.' or something.

Reworded it somewhat.

> V.6. Distributing Currency Rewards
I question the inclusion of the word 'currency' above. Please give it thought.

I thought about it and took away the word 'currency'. Rewards may come in different forms, including in various tokens that may not be meant to be labeled as currency.

> '65% of inflation is distributed as rewards through the rewards pool.'

> '...participate in creation and/or curation of content."

Debating if 'the' should be in there ... 'the creation' ... 'the curation'. Will think on it.

> "The reward pool is filled out of 65% of the inflation."
Strike

We'd have a sentence starting off unclearly and with a percentage if we change those two lines. "The reward pool is used to distribute funds to those who actively participate in creation and/or curation of content. The funding for the reward pool is composed out of 65\% of the inflation." is the new version.

> VI. CONCLUSION

> I think 'a constantly evolving' fits better here. It's less alliterative, and therefore it sounds more grounded.

Done.

> '...fuel mass adoption of all cryptocurrencies by introducing new people to Hive.', or 'fuel mass adoption of cryptocurrencies by serving as a gateway' to new users, or just 'fuel mass adoption of cryptocurrencies.' This reduces the passive voice which makes the statement more affirmative.

Good point. Rewrote it to say: "Hive is a constantly evolving and innovative ecosystem that aims to fuel mass adoption of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies."

> 'designed to scale with widespread adoption' or 'mass adoption'. One adjective is enough, and two sounds grasping. Scale is a good buzzword.

Aptly caught, fixed.

'Incorporating...' or 'By combining...'

> Done.

I really very much appreciate your diligence and hard work to write the white paper. I am glad to have been useful to you in that endeavor.

Thanks!

> This requires further explanation.

Rewritten with more detail.

> "'With a free Hive account .."

Going to save emphasis for the more relevant section as we do not want dapp owners and builders thinking its all about onboarding non-investing users.

> Strike 'the'.

✓

> 'Hive accounts create

Good wording. Added 'existing' but good.

> Stolen

Nice catch!

> 'This provides a positive...' or 'enables'a positive....

Went with enables.

> '...or are unfamiliar...'

Thank you for being the only person to read this document line by line.

> 'required', or 'New users don't need'

Went with required.

> Add 'as available' or 'unless someone already used that name.' or words to that effect.

Rewrote this section some. It had additional issues.

> 'that is maintained by a diverse set of autonomous servers'

Rewrote that entirely to equalize with Tech Vision.

> 17 consensus witnesses can censor anything they want. Best to not pretend that isn't true.

This is very difficult to do and would break the blockchain at best. It can only be done in cases where the content of the transactions is so damaging its causing the blockchain to halt. Altering the contents of any blockchain arbitrarily automatically nullifies the purpose of the blockchain. Changing the state of the blockchain post fork (like Steemit did) is another thing but the previous state and records would remain written into earlier blocks.

I changed the paragraph somewhat to make it clearer. There are some highly technical elements that may be discussed here but they are beyond the reasonable scope of the whitepaper and border on post-grad thesis research paper material.

(tbc)

The white paper is critical to Hive's growth potential, and I greatly appreciate your hard work to write it. I can look for typos as well as anyone else, and that is a useful aid to writers. It may be all I can do, but it's something I can do to contribute.

Can you please take me off the blacklists when you get a chance thank you

The entirety of this comment is now processed.

Hi, Guilty! Here is a translation of the Whitepaper in Spanish. Libro blanco de Hive en Español | Traducción . It was made by @gorayii and me.

Thank you but at this point this is an incomplete draft and should not be translated. We will ask for translations in Gitlab or otherwise.

Thanks again for all the time you put into writing the whitepaper. It is definitely getting better and better. As usual, I am going to give lots of feedback and you can then decide what you want to change. I hope you see all the feedback as constructive criticism, the goal is simply to make the paper better.

• Section I introduction line 4: typo
  > it sports three second

Should be "it supports"

• Section I introduction:
  > Hive also aims to overcome mainstream adoption and inclusion shortcomings in blockchain technology and content publishing by improving on their accessibility.

Would personally prefer to remove "and inclusion" as it makes the sentence overly complicated and the meaning is also not very clear.

• Section I.1: I don't like this whole section. First, I think it doesn't have a place in a whitepaper, as the goal is not to shill the coin but to explain it and its technicalities. If people insist on having that section, then a lot of aspects are not mentioned such as censorship resistance, scalability, good ability to host second layers, the freemium model, and upvotes. None of this is mentioned. If it was my decision I would remove that subsection completely.

• Section I.2: Great background explanation, which I believe could be merged into the introduction. It fits perfectly at the start of the introduction. If this change is implemented along with the removal of Section I.1 it would make the whitepaper way more "clean" as the intro is now a single section.

• Section II: This section as a whole is very polished, and should be in the final version as it is. Good job.

• Section III: Also very polished and ready for the final version. I would only suggest explaining that "witness = block producer" at any point during the section. All subsections mention either block producers or witnesses, so lots of opportunities to explain they are equivalent.

• Section IV: Ready for the final version.

• Section V.5: The first paragraph is great. The second paragraph is a bit of a useless digression into how post values are affected by the "demographics" of hive. This is not certain to be accurate and I am sure that a lot of people would debate whether what is written is true or not. I personally have no idea whether it is correct or not, but I see no value for the reader in adding that second paragraph.

• Other subsections of Section V: ready for the final version.

• Section VI: ready for final version.

Amazing work, and thank you again.

> Section I introduction line 4: typo
it sports three second
Should be "it supports"

No, it's meant to be 'sports', meaning 'it has'.

> Section I introduction:
Hive also aims to overcome mainstream adoption and inclusion shortcomings in blockchain technology and content publishing by improving on their accessibility.
Would personally prefer to remove "and inclusion" as it makes the sentence overly complicated and the meaning is also not very clear.

Done, removed

> Section I.1: I don't like this whole section. First, I think it doesn't have a place in a whitepaper, as the goal is not to shill the coin but to explain it and its technicalities. If people insist on having that section, then a lot of aspects are not mentioned such as censorship resistance, scalability, good ability to host second layers, the freemium model, and upvotes. None of this is mentioned. If it was my decision I would remove that subsection completely.

I've removed it and I'll have it transferred to different info points. You're absolutely right.

> Section I.2: Great background explanation, which I believe could be merged into the introduction. It fits perfectly at the start of the introduction. If this change is implemented along with the removal of Section I.1 it would make the whitepaper way more "clean" as the intro is now a single section.

I've removed the title 'background' and merged it into the introduction. However, it can't be at the start. We don't want readers to instantly see Steem upon starting to read the whitepaper. Hive, not Steem, is the focus of Hive.

> Section II: This section as a whole is very polished, and should be in the final version as it is. Good job.

Thank you.

> Section III: Also very polished and ready for the final version. I would only suggest explaining that "witness = block producer" at any point during the section. All subsections mention either block producers or witnesses, so lots of opportunities to explain they are equivalent.

Clarified that, good catch.

> Section IV: Ready for the final version.

Perfect.

> Section V.5: The first paragraph is great. The second paragraph is a bit of a useless digression into how post values are affected by the "demographics" of hive. This is not certain to be accurate and I am sure that a lot of people would debate whether what is written is true or not. I personally have no idea whether it is correct or not, but I see no value for the reader in adding that second paragraph.

I've included it following numerous issues with misunderstandings within the community. It clarifies some points and particularly addresses the assertions that everything is a conspiracy. It doesn't have much to do with the technicalities of Hivw but it doesn't hurt anyone to keep it in.

> Other subsections of Section V: ready for the final version.
Section VI: ready for final version.

Thanks.

Very nice! Thanks for your hard work.

Would like to make 2 suggestions;

First suggestion:

I. INTRODUCTION

> "Hive is a decentralized fork of the Steem blockchain....."

I would suggest something along the lines of:

"Hive is an independent decentralized blockchain. In the terminologies used within the blockchain tech scene, it was a fork, off the steem blockchain......"

Note:

I would also suggest that a footnote be added in which the term blockchain is defined, with ref. to the relevant sources for the definition.
So that it is clearly defined that when this term is used in this particular sentence of the WP, it is referring to independent, privately owned nodes that are communicating with each other (and absolutely nothing else).

Justification for suggestion:

The original sentence used can be read many ways depending on who reads it and for what purposes. Considering the nature of things revolving around this entire topic, it would be wise to ensure there is no possibility for any misrepresentation or other abuse of the facts.

Second suggestion:

II.1.1. Addressing 51% Attacks

> “Hive was originally created as a direct result of a 51% attack on the Steem blockchain committed by the founding company Steemit Inc. through unprecedented collusion.”

I would suggest something along the lines of:

"Hive came to be after such a scenario took place and the founders of Hive did the right thing by ensuring an independent blockchain be made available for those who wished to utilize it. Hive does not have any centralized entity that can lay claim to it.”……..

Justification:

Names of any entities are irrelevant, it was the “loop holes” that were abused by some individuals that motivated the creation of an independent blockchain.
The bad actors that abused all of us and our good nature, with what they did to all of us, could very well in our attempts to simply tell the truth, once again, abuse our innocent mention of any entities so as to try and bring more harm, damages and distress to people who utilize Hive today.
We do not need to give those bad actors any opportunity to cause more stress and harm to anyone, as they have caused enough damages to many peoples lives to last a life time.

Note: I would put the same footnote ref. to the use of the term blockchain here also.

I believe that maybe @apshamilton could word these suggestions in a way that are coherent with his profession.

& well done on the WP, that was a lot of stress and work, especially considering the fact that you put it all up in a transparent, open and public manner for discussion and input.

You get a golden star on your weekly timesheet for all the hours, days, weeks and now months of work put into this.

:) Cheers.

> "independent"

"Hive is an independent and decentralized fork" change. We can't completely erase the fact that we're a Steem fork, but we've already overshadowed the original by miles.

> Addressing 51% Attacks

I believe we clarified this already between your original suggestion and now over other chats; the verdict being that we may name the criminals and their organization.