I don't like the term 'proof of brain'. Steem is DPOS ( delegated proof of stake ). When users post on steemit they don't actually mine steem nor secure the blockchain so it is very misleading to call it proof of brain because it is technically inacurate and there is no innovation there, not to mention that it sounds ridiculous. You have to get rid of the concept of mining, people don't care about this stuff and the few who do are going to be confused by this term.
some typo in there
We built Steemit on Steem to show the world the future the web. We built it to inspire new digital content business models and apps by entreprenuers and developers.
And please do something about the curation reward incentives which are not working at all
https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/make-curating-great-again
Also I'd be grateful if you could explain the slogan 'money talks'
First I am really bothered with the word 'money talks' and I would really like to know what the meaning of this word is in this context and what message steemit inc want to get accross with this slogan, because to me there is a very negative connotations with this expression( money is everything).Nowhere has steemit inc explained the choice to use this nor have they asked the community if they like it, so if you read this steemit please let us know.
This is not helping steemit image imo.
I actually wrote about this a month ago. https://steemit.com/steemit/@vimukthi/we-are-human-asics-steem-ponzi-scheme-explained-debunked
Compared to gold, Cryptos aren't REAL. They are not Tangible. Cryptos are not real assets. They have value because of what they can do. Cryptos are the hyper-gold except for being REAL. Most cryptos are mined or minted in a POW or PoS process. I see STEEM not as a social media but as a non-PoW non-PoS mining/minting process. Just think for a moment what if we could replace the Hashes and piggy back on social media activity instead.
What I love the most is the whole process having an intrinsic value. Even in PoS mining, the token/coin creation process itself has no value on its own. Steemit has built the single best mass community on the net and used the community itself as the mining process. It's Human Action within Human Action; 2 layers of pure capitalism.
Blocks are produced using DPoS. But the rewards are allocated based on the activity within the eco system. Instead of how many hashes you can do, steemit creates a system where it's about getting the most upvotes by providing value to the community. It's value on top of value. Proof of Brain/Creativity/Contribution is simply a term to describe piggy backing the token creation process on an intrinsically valuable system of Human Action.
I like the idea that tokens are created based on users's contributions ( even if technically not true), what I don't like is the word used to express this idea.
Token Are created based on users's contributions. But they are not created by the contributions or the contributors. Creation is done by DPoS and the created tokens are distributed based on user's contributions measured by the received upvotes.
In a DPoS system, the token creators tend to be much similar to mining pools than miners. This isn't a perfect allegory. But it's an interesting observation I've come across.
This is wrong. Tokens are created at a fixed rate by block. They are then distributed to users according to voting.
Which is why it's not "proof of brain"
I absolutely agree that "proof of brain" is a pretty bad term. It has a nice ring to it and people that know very little about the technology might like, heck, it might be a nice marketing strategy, but it's absolutely inaccurate.
And there is a very common killer example to show how inaccurate the term actually is - all the bot voting. How are the bots showing they have a brain? If this system is supposed to be a proof of brain one, then it isn't working at all as automated voting and earning is commonplace here.
So I do agree that the term needs to be replaced with something better and more accurate.
Proof of Brain is Rewards Pool consensus. DPoS is Block Producer consensus. There is innovation in PoB - everything to do with the Rewards Pool allocation for content creation and curation is and it needs to be described succinctly.
Is Proof of Brain an alternative phrase for 'Subjective Proof of Work'?
Yes, I think so.
The consensus mechanism is used to secure the blockchain, why do you need it for the reward pool ? I don't get it..
I think what Ned is trying to do is put focus on the rewards voting and labeling that "PoB", which is the part that new users need to wrap their head around before they move on to the other "consensus" that we have about the actual blocks. Hope this makes sense and that I'm not way off here.
Labeling reward pool distribution as 'PoB' is wrong, because the allocation mecanism does not use proof of anything, it's just a smart contract and so there is no need for consensus, the blockchain is already secured by DPoS. Proof of work has a clear definition, it's not some vague concept that you can apply to anything by just adding quotation marks..
It's true, or so I think, that there's not cryptographic "proof" so to speak in this case, but rather there is "brain work" that gives an entry into the economic system without doing the classical buy in of currency/hardware to "mine" it.
You're right this does introduce some confusion. I can see use for the term on a microscale, but out of context (which it's going to be for most people, both non-steem techies and non-techies) this could be very burdensome.
A better term should probably be introduced at some point.
Wouldn't Proof of Contribution be a good term. It discribe what's happening under the hood with greater accuracy.
Instead of how many hashes you can do, steemit creates a system where it's about getting the most upvotes by providing value to the community. It's value on top of value.
The upvote system isn't perfect. But it represents the contribution of an individual to the community. My term may not be perfect. But it's pretty damn good IMO and it can be backed with reasons.
I think using proof of anything is misleading but if they are going to use this word anyway, proof of contribution sounds much better. Actually I'd use 'contribution proof' so as to not confuse this with a consensus mechanism.
Contribution, or percieved contribution, because who knows how many real users vs bots might be a better term.
Of course in the end, technically, it all circles back to a real brain somewhere doing the work and being rewarded for that work. Hence proof -of-"brain (work)" isn't an alltogether horrible term, but it can get very confusing.
Says the guy whose delegation is used to fund plagiarism. What innovation is there in plagiarism?
Details: https://steemit.com/plagiarism/@littleboy/neds-pre-mined-sp-is-being-used-to-promote-steem-abuse
"Voting"
Got 'em, coach.
Fair response.
As I mentioned in my other comment, I think the biggest problem with the phrase "proof of brain" is that participating does not actually require a brain. There are a ton of automated votes that are part of the steem ecosystem, so nobody has to prove they have a brain in order for them to participate. So if the idea is to have a proof of brain, the bar is currently way too low ;) Everything that's being done on the platform, can indeed be done without a brain.
It's a nice-sounding buzz word that has something to do with the typical blockchain terminology, but I think you guys should look for a better and more descriptive term, because this one is obviously inaccurate.
thanks for bringing the issues infront.
How would you describe the reward pool allocation in a concise, catchy way to the target demographic of users (hopefully, people likely to be engaged and get at least some SP)?
I'd just say rewards are distributed based on users's contributions.