Unusual compared to your previous post length from 6+ months ago.
>... This is not going to stop anyone who has money to burn and want to hurt steem.
I'm not saying that someone with lots of money cannot hurt steem, but that your example is irrealist. Steem can defend against all of these attack using downvotes and blacklist on the frontends.
> Demonetizing content is very violent
There is no actual monetization until after 7 days thus there is no demonetization.
> ... wealthy people can censor anything on the platform. You were talking about botnets spamming earlier, those spammers are harmless because they upvote content, wait until bots starts downvoting purely to destroy this platform.
There is no actual censorship on steem thanks to the blockchain and the sorting via curation form the wisdom of the stake is what gives steem it's value.
> I am not self voting, mindhunter is buying votes from me, exactly like the dozens of similar vote buying scheme on steemit.
I’m not having fun doing this, I would much rather curate content and would earn much more money.
No, you would not earn more money from curating content vs what you're doing now even if you were doing it 24/7.
Actually now you will because we have no intention of letting what you're doing happen.
> I don’t think this is relevant to my point
Yes because either you upvote yourself with your stake, curate good content or flag the crap. You either selfishly extract tokens from the blockchain or you make the value of those token be worth more by improving the content or rewarding those who develop the ecosystem.
> Many users have made a business out of moderation, see @cheetah @steemcleaners and other users that are basically compensated in some form or another.
Even though the steemcleaner post makes money, lately the cost associated with @cheetah are more than the money donnated to the service.
and if anything is left it's not giving anyone involved a 1$/h salary for what they're doing.
> Not 90% of all steemians of course, a post would require say 90 out of 100 votes against it to be down voted.
A moderation board could also be created to facilitate moderation and encourage user to get involved in it.
Still you want 100 steemian to watch child porn before deciding if it's worth a downvote? More than 1 person is too much and the people doing this job traditionally require expensive psycological support.
> 1 steemian = 1 down vote would be a no issue if the reputation system was solid, unfortunately that’s not the case today.
Single number reputation is indeed completely flawed, There are multiple kind of reputation that can't be expressed by a number.
Luckily current reputation system has nothing to do with how content get rewarded or is visible.
> Also my posts have done a lot to open the discussions and improve steem.
I think they were mostly useless and they distracted from finding actual solutions.
That's my opinion, Be as insulted as you want by it, snowflake!