Steem is Highly Inefficient
When Steem has a problem, what happens? Everyone starts complaining! The problem is identified a thousand times by a thousand different people, and maybe a dozen "solutions" are posed. Now, none of the solutions are the ultimate answer, so which one should we pick? No one can seem to come to consensus as to what we should actually do.
The answer is all of them.
This is the great thing about decentralization. Everyone is going to try to implement their answer. SMTs are taking too long?! Fuck it! Vaporchains, SteemEngine, and Stratos. Let's do this! It's happening!
Of course, this is inefficient, and corporations will look at this behavior while laughing and scoffing at the way we are doing things. Wouldn't it be nicer if we just put someone in charge to decide the one true path we should be taking?
No, of course not!
We already tried that. What an abysmal disaster! Look at the state of the world we live in! We tried it their way and now it's time for no one to be in charge.
Decentralization will create many redundancies. Many people will be running around trying to accomplish the same goal. However, this is exactly what we need. Inefficiency is a good thing at this point. It is a robust solution. People need jobs! Real jobs, not ones in a factory for minimum wage that should have already been automated by robots.
We need the trust of a currency that we have control over; one that can't be inflated into the dirt like every single fiat currency that exists in the world of central banking. Make no mistake: the CryptoSphere is under attack.
A bitcoin ETF is not a blessing. Trillions of institutional dollars being thrown at the blockchain is not a good thing. It is an attack. It is the act of trading something whose value is less than worthless for our precious coins and reputation. It is a hostile takeover; the act of taking our currency and putting it in the hands of people who can't be trusted to do the right thing.
They are creating volatility that shouldn't exist. They are scaring people away from the blockchain using the same old fear tactics of the past. They are manipulating price with futures markets just like they did to gold, silver, and other precious metals.
We have to prove that we evolve faster than their attacks can damage.
We have to prove that smart money is far superior to anything they can throw at us.
Remember Litecoin? That worthless redundant piece of garbage that was supposed to fall off the grid? Yeah, it's #4 today on the market cap.
https://bitcoinist.com/litecoin-price-mimblewimble-privacy/
https://cryptonewsreview.com/litecoin-surges-14-after-mimblewimble-privacy-protocol-announcement/
https://www.investinblockchain.com/litecoin-ltc-collaborates-beam-privacy-coin-mimblewimble/
Apparently, Mimblewimble is a pretty solid technology that boosts throughput and privacy at the same time. No other team works more closely with Bitcoin than Litecoin.
Community > All.
And so, it doesn't matter if we are "wasting our time" and "being inefficient". The trust gained from such robust problem solving is the single most important advantage we have against the established system.
Inefficiency is not a weakness in nature. Photosynthesis is but ~3% efficient. Horrible! Yet, that 97% of sunlight that isn't transformed into sugar does lots of other good stuff instead. Lack of redundancy is weakness in nature, and Wells Fargo shows us today that it is weakness in artificial systems as well.
However, that being said, there are things that simply can't be redundant, like atmospheres. If the atmosphere fails, we don't have multiple fallbacks, and we all die choking and squawking. Steem has such things as well. For example, SPS. It's conceivable that we can have numerous mechanisms to fund development, but mechanisms to adopt such development either involve the entire community, or fracture the community into forks.
Will we endure the forkopalypse or will we remain a single blockchain? Yes, we will.
Thanks!
I would make the argument that development funds itself and these entry level bootstrap techniques we are trying to push through will be phased out within 10 years, max.
We haven't yet figured out how to set up these alien business models that pay the community to develop the products. Once we do the money will flow without the need scramble for seed funding.
I agree, the whole concept is true free market. We are so accustomed to the way things are in the system we live in.
At my job, I hear it all the time: it can’t be done, we’ve tried it. I come along and take another stab at it and what do you know? It can be done but in a slightly different way but we get the end result we want.
Not tooting my own horn but when multiple players try to make things or fix something it leads often to a better result. This is because of different perspectives and trains of thought. We are all different and look at situations differently which is the beauty of decentralized work. It works very well for innovation but is ‘inefficient’ according to contemporary metrics. Throw those metrics out the window I say!
Centralized structures lead to poor results too often.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I'm not sure I agree with this position but I see very well what you mean and where you are coming from. This is a very important debate you are taking a stance in ... I really need to find the time an energy to propose another possible view - it would lead to an interesting discussion.
Posted using Partiko Android
Not only does it takes time but it also results in miscues that will need to be adjusted and adapted to what works. However, the positive is that in the time we live in with the availability of data and technology, these inconsistencies or misalignments could be seen sooner which could lead to improvements in the evolution towards adoption we seek.
Posted using Partiko iOS