Same problem with my accounts and others known to me. You will find posting to the HIVE blockchain still functions through https://peakd.com

this is funny now PeakD is not working for me but hive.blog is
Maybe it is like @themarkymark said, just a glitch

Hopefully a glitch which will be soon rectified.

Likely a node issue, I recommend using Peakd and pointing to Anyx's node in the settings.

Thanks for that.
Hey um what the fuck happened at steemit while i have been away over the last few days?
were account funds really stolen?

Yes, Justin Sun enabled the fraudulent witnesses to steal 23.6M steem in a hard fork.

Fuck !!!! hold on i just need to reattach my jaw to the rest of my face.
How many accounts ?
I just had a look at theycallme dans account because of something else i saw and its empty! nothing

> Triple A claims the accounts up for seizure are those belonging to people who were, “Publicly attacking users, collecting personal information, threatening murder.” They also accuse them of spreading fake news, and damaging network stability.

https://decrypt.co/29416/steem-network-to-seize-5-million-from-its-own-users

It's a tale as old as time, "bad people" don't deserve basic human rights, including their right to hold private property.

And, the accused are presumed GUILTY until "proven" innocent, because "bad people" don't deserve anything resembling a "fair trial" or a "transparent process".

SECRECY = CENSORSHIP

COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP

It is a shame that people persist in being dishonest.
I can read only read this far

>steem is a blockchain, while Steemit is a blogging application that runs on top. Sun bought the application but also used a large supply of Steem coins and the power of other exchanges to take over the blockchain platform too. When this happened, Steem’s diehard community built their own blockchain to escape to, called Hive.

As soon as I read distortions like that I am done reading any more.

Which part of that quote do you believe is inaccurate?

What I found shocking is that they're still stealing steem from accounts, and in all likelihood will continue as long as they can get away with it.

I'm abandoning ship.

Following our hearts and minds is the best any of us can do.

I disagree with the presented official narrative and time line. They completely ignore the unprovoked hostile actions taken directly against Steemit.inc and Sun.

The moral high ground may need to be occupied before claiming it. Solid ground is good.
Claiming that Sun acted first is a misrepresentation of facts. It is unnecessary, if they had some evidence in support of their stated fears, they should share it or start being a little more accurate with their narrative.

> They completely ignore the unprovoked hostile actions taken directly against Steemit.inc and Sun.

Good point, but even if jsun was "wronged", it doesn't justify stealing (not just freezing) crypto accounts.

Just because someone punched you in the face without provocation, doesn't mean you're justified in running around punching everyone you dislike.

This has moved far beyond simply "an eye for an eye".

>it doesn't justify stealing

I agree in principal.

>This has moved far beyond simply "an eye for an eye".

I strongly disagree.

Unless we have experienced that kind of prolonged attack I do not believe that any of us are in a position to negatively judge his actions. Those who have experienced prolonged abuse will be less inclined to make a negative judgment against him. He is only protecting what is his.
I would have done it very differently but only because I have spent time looking into the structure. You can not give any quarter to the psychopathic. They are lost forever

They're taking funds from people who didn't have anything to do with the jsun incident.

Now they're taking funds simply because they can.

>They're taking funds from people who didn't have anything to do with the jsun incident

The most shocking for me was @ theycall me dan. On one level I understand it, on another level I see it as wrong.

When an individual or group has made it clear that they are at war with you, and they want to destroy you, you will do whatever you need to do, just to survive and protect yourself.

They drew first blood and kept up a fictitious narrative with no basis in reality.

Exactly, now that they've started confiscating account funds, I no longer feel my investment is safe.

They do not appear to be going after just anyone. It looks very targeted to me, clearing out the openly hostile forces.
The problem I have is that i do not trust the people here. I trust them even less than the other guy. At least i can make sense of the actions. A wise woman once said to me ''You can not trust people who tell you lies'' and sadly there is no shortage of those with this team.

There's no shortage of liars on either side (the corporate bs alternatives are all full of liars as well).

However, I'll pick 20 idiot kings over any 1 idiot king any day of the week.

Let me know when hive starts draining the accounts of "troublemakers" and I'll nuke this account as well.

lol If i see that i will let you know.

Sister chains has a nice feel to me. I am thinking that it may be possible to set it up as a competition between the two chains. I guess that would require some thought in developing some suitable metrics.
War like behavior begets a war like response, mostly anyway, but not necessarily.
I have noticed some positive responsiveness to reasonable suggestions in some places and not so much in others, so far.
Edit
There are some aspects to Steemit that seem to be outperforming Hive.

This kind of thing disturbs me a lot and may be one such aspect along with curation rewards for smaller accounts.
https://hive.blog/hive-168088/@lucylin/a-qucik-post-while-my-video-is-uplaoding-and-the-stupidity-of-big-accounts

I recognize the wisdom of accepting what is. However we must not stop there, we need to actively create how we want things to be.

I appreciate your vigilance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4

They are full of shit, they even went after accounts that didn't do any transactions in over 2 years.

I'm suggesting that YOU should use Benford's Law to identify fraudulent accounts and fraudulent voting patterns.

This is a fraud fighting tool.

Benford's law has been used to identify fake accounts on twitter by collecting the number of followers of suspicious accounts and then collecting the number of followers each of those followers has and running that as a data-set against Benford's law.

I think something like that would be very useful for HIVE.

And as far as timing votes for profit, I believe all votes should be equally weighted no matter who votes or what time they vote.

The "band-wagon" votes are toxic (gamified for profit only).

AND, when I first joined, there was a view counter. The consensus on why it was taken away was due to complaints POB was dead and posts with hundred(s) of votes only had like 3 or 4 views. From bidbots to autovoters it was obvious most of the highest paid posts received very few actual eyes on them. LINK

> And as far as timing votes for profit, I believe all votes should be equally weighted no matter who votes or what time they vote.

That creates a different set of incentives as well. As in, there would be little point to "curate" as you earn exactly what you get regardless if it's crap or not. There needs to be more to it than simply "equal weight".

> AND, when I first joined, there was a view counter.

It's a super useless feature when multiple frontends existing in our ecosystem. It was more useful when Steemit was the sole and major frontend. Now, try to make sense of that "page view" by mixing in PeakD, Ecency, different tribe frontends, etc.

How does incentivizing early votes INCREASE fairness?

Aren't there already armies of downvoters weeding out "low quality content"?

ANY page counter is better than NO page counter.

Imagine youtube with no view counter. I routinely find videos with thousands of views but only 3 or 4 votes.

And speaking of that, there is zero cost and zero incentive for youtube votes. And yet, strangely enough, people still vote.

YouTube doesn't have multiple frontends that dilute the views. Especially when views is a metric for content creators getting paid. Not to mention a useful filter for the audience. But, I don't expect there is enough dev talent here to match YouTube's algorithms.

I don't know the details, but it wouldn't surprise me if the likes also count towards those incentives as well. Just because it poses no financial incentives to the consumers doesn't mean there's nothing on the producer's end. Ever wonder why YouTubers always ask to "like and subscribe"? Yeah, zero incentives.

Never said early voting was a good idea. It's always been the incentive. The only difference is that the window has shrunk.

And I'm not sure where this "army" is. Not many people bother anymore because it's nothing but getting flak. People always talking about armies when only a few entities are actively downvoting anything.

And what is fairness? It doesn't exist even in crypto.

When you can come up with a set of incentives that could cover fairness, abuse, merits, etc., let the whole world know. Until then, it's just complaining for complaining's sake.

There are no financial incentives for the voters on youtube. And yet they still vote.

There is no financial incentives for HIVE users to re-blog posts. And yet they still re-blog.

You "never said early voting was a good idea" you merely suggested that taking it away was "a bad idea".

Isn't that the same thing? Iff you're truly neutral on the concept, it seems hard to imagine you'd even bother commenting on it. I'm simply wondering what you believe are the "benefits" of the current system which results in so much "band-wagon" autovoting.

Downvoting spiked after the free downvote bar was added. If you're main concern is "low quality content", then please explain how the "fix" (free downvotes) would be even slightly changed by removing the early voting incentives? The downvoting incentives would remain totally unaffected. Fully intact.

And what is fairness? Don't you think it's generally considered a "level playing field" that doesn't automatically favor a small group of established players (who also happen to write the rules of the game)?

People do love a lottery!

Have you considered injecting some randomness (like bitcoin) into the "reward pool" distribution instead of automatically shoveling it into the hungry mouths of those who already "won the most rewards"?

When I come up with a set of incentives that could cover fairness, abuse, merits, etc., I'll need to discuss these ideas with intelligent and influential individuals like yourself.

Until then, I haven't offered a single "complaint".

I'm certain, if you look carefully, you'll notice that I'm simply asking questions in order to better understand how the current system operates and what opinions are held by knowledgeable individuals.

I merely suggested that "change it" is not good enough. There are other things to consider.

You don't want to sub one problem for another. Hive isn't build to have easy "hard forks" like some of the other projects are trying.

I would rather this to be something more people think about and come up with ideas. I won't pretend I'm smart enough to come up with incentives.

As for voting on YouTube, I'm sure some peeps think it helps their content creators. Even reblogs here sometimes help with extra votes. I know for a fact that several people look at my reblog list and I do the same to them.

The incentives there are not direct financial gains, but there are incentives.

I do admit, a random factor could be interesting. Imagine the curation payout has the top 3 payouts to curators as "random" and then resume standard calculations.

> I merely suggested that "change it" is not good enough. There are other things to consider.

And that's exactly what I'm looking for. What do you believe are the important things to consider?

> I would rather this to be something more people think about and come up with ideas.

I agree. Every member should be involved, but it seems like there's often a rush-to-disqualify non-technical voices.

> I do admit, a random factor could be interesting. Imagine the curation payout has the top 3 payouts to curators as "random" and then resume standard calculations.

That would be amazing.

> What do you believe are the important things to consider?

Since voting behavior is what we are looking at.

Take the equal weight example:

• What's the incentive to actually curate? Would it be easier to vote whatever?

That would certainly increase the number of transactions. But people may get less because a larger stakeholder might just spread so far and thin to prevent downvotes from coming for "overrewarded".

For manual curators, that could be great. For lazy curators and/or trolls, what's preventing them from doing something on day 6, given the decaying nature of votes past that 6.5 day mark?

• What's the voting culture that it'd be shaping?

I'm sure you've seen Marky there being hounded by the Venezuelan community for locking them out of bigger upvotes due to him voting them early with $2 votes.

Equal weight sounds great. Would it shift voting time towards 6.5 day? Since you get what you vote, it makes sense to vote on something that would pay you out quickly.

Would that be a bad thing? In the above scenario, curators wouldn't have to worry about something is too overvalued.

At the same time, would many people fall through the cracks because the decaying voting window past 6.5 days? Would that decrease average earnings even further because there's no reason for those trying to maximize to give out bigger votes. Instead, they want to rake in faster by voting at the last possible second.

Idk how relevant or accurate those presumptions are. They are just some thoughts.

> I'm sure you've seen Marky there being hounded by the Venezuelan community for locking them out of bigger upvotes due to him voting them early with $2 votes.

I haven't heard anything about this. How does a $2 vote "lock them out"?? I'm definitely missing something here.

It's the misaligned incentives.

Large curators don't want to vote on things already with several dollars on it because that hurt their curation rewards.

So, some content creators feel like they got "robbed" of more rewards. It's kinda comical really. Never thought I would see the day when people complain about upvotes. Sounds really entitled, but it does underscore an issue.

That the current early voting incentives are not ideal.

https://peakd.com/hive/@themarkymark/i-am-the-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing

Nice,

> What's the incentive to actually curate? Would it be easier to vote whatever?

This already happens. People already vote for "whatever".

Many people spend as many votes as they can on burnposts and steemcleaner warnings (and other consistent top earners) because they're virtually guaranteed a bigger payout because of the band-wagon effect. These are not "high quality original content" by any stretch of the imagination.

The incentive to actually curate comes from the desire to build an audience of VIEWERS (not just autovoters).

If people like the same kind of stuff I curate, then they will FOLLOW me and READ my posts.

The key problem here is that I can't even tell if anyone is reading my posts unless they reply.

I was lucky when I first signed up.

I was posting stuff and received a few scattered upvotes.

I posted for a couple of weeks and received almost no payouts because I didn't receive many "above minimum" vote totals.

When I figured out that there was a minimum payout threshold I was going to walk away from this little experiment, BUT then a curator found me, I guess at random, and started giving me above minimum upvotes and complementing my posts with quotes to indicate they had actually read them. They even delegated to me. That's when I was hooked.

And now one of the biggest problems I've identified is that this very well intentioned person who helped me and many other small-fish has completely abandoned the platform because of unwarranted blacklisting and downvotes and because they figured out that the curation project they had joined in good-faith was being milked for profit.

What we end up with here appears to be a system of "king-makers" (oligarchs) where maybe fifty of the top accounts can put whomever they like at the moment either on the all trending page or off the all trending page (regardless of "quality").

It doesn't feel like there's much incentive for people to share their votes with new blood because all the financial incentives are set to encourage people to just pile onto whatever is already the most popular.

Perhaps we could consider incentives to vote on accounts with long track records and very low payout averages in order to reward the persistent?

Perhaps we could consider incentives to vote on posts that have below minimum payouts?

Or perhaps we could just remove the early voting and band-wagon incentives to give everyone a fair shot.

I'm just sayin'

Try looking at this from the perspective of a newb.

I show up, I don't know how any of this works, I figure I'll just start posting and see what happens.

I post for a couple of weeks and have almost no readers and almost no payouts, so I quit.

Or I get downvoted and I have no idea why or what the heck happened to my rep, so I quit.

Or I figure out that only the whales and the extremely savvy can really make this work for them, so I quit.

I've seen a lot of people vent some frustration and the default response appears to be, GTFO.

I think people naturally want to give their votes to stuff they personally like to read.

But the financial incentives over-ride that natural desire.

> Would that decrease average earnings even further because there's no reason for those trying to maximize to give out bigger votes.

Flattening the payout curve (removing early voting incentives) wouldn't change the total value of all votes cast.

This would have no effect on "average earnings" for all-members.

This would definitely reduce the "average earnings" of the current TOP EARNERS.

But it would definitely increase the "average earnings" of everyone who is NOT a top earner.

Nice.

BENFORD'S LAW SOLVES THE "FAKE ACCOUNT PROBLEM".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-aZrftUPlk

BENFORD'S LAW SOLVES THE "FAKE DATA PROBLEM".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnWyAOmlIo

BENFORD'S LAW CAN EVEN VALIDATE OR INVALIDATE ELECTIONS DATA AND FAKE PHOTOS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmuq4A-SiWc

It seems to be working normally now.

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

You got more than 1000 replies. Your next target is to reach 1250 replies.

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:

Project Activity Update

Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!

:)

:)

BENFORD'S LAW SOLVES THE "FAKE ACCOUNT PROBLEM".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-aZrftUPlk

BENFORD'S LAW SOLVES THE "FAKE DATA PROBLEM".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnWyAOmlIo

BENFORD'S LAW CAN EVEN VALIDATE OR INVALIDATE ELECTIONS DATA AND FAKE PHOTOS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmuq4A-SiWc

Try using dapps like ecency

Please explain.

https://lbry.tv/@LOGICZOMBIE:0/1969:6