proofofstake

> Facebook collects on you when you interact with their systems

I do not think this is true. What happens with my e-mail address when someone else signs up to Facebook and shares their contact list (with my e-mail address in it)?

How did Facebook know who my friends are the very moment I signed in, without sharing my address list?

They already have collected information on my social graph, without my own explicit permission, but with implicit permission from less tech-savy friends.

And that's nothing to say about people tagging me in Facebook pictures to train their giant DeepFace algorithm.

In both scenario's I am not accessing or interacting with a Facebook system, while my information is still being abused.

I am in this Kafka-esque situation where I try to get an account deleted that is not even mine. I don't have and want a Facebook account, but Facebook does not agree.

I few years back I started receiving mail for an account that I never created. The name is not close to mine, but a silly sexual pun.

I have mailed security and account support multiple times, asking for the account to be deleted, or decoupled from my email address, because I keep getting login attempt notifications and even friend suggestions.

Just checking, and coincidentally the very last email is one for the Facebook account. "Hey, it seems you are having trouble logging in! Click here to sign in.". Yes, Facebook, someone, for whatever reason, is trying to log in to a Facebook account for 4 years now, and won't take no for an answer... "If this wasn't you, please let us know by clicking here". Ok, Facebook, this is not me, and it was not me the last 10 times I clicked that button.

(I now assume, that this account is somehow being used to mine my social connections. Something like a public ghost account.)

Timeline:

2013: Hi Fuck, you got more friends on Facebook than you realize! List of 6 people I know IRL.

2013: Hi Fuck, you have 1 friendship request. Log in to accept.

2013: Do you know [3 people I know]?

2013: Hi Fuck, Fuck placed something on your timeline and is waiting to see it.

2013: Do you know [9 people I know]?

2014: We've updated our Terms of Service

2015: Someone asked a new password for your account.

2017: Hey Fuck, it seems you are having trouble logging in.

2017: Hey Fuck, it seems someone tried logging into your account from a new location.

2017: Hey Fuck, we received your request to reset your account password. XXXXX is your reset code.

2017: Fuck, go back to Facebook in just one click.

2017: Hey Fuck, it seems you are having trouble logging in.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. You need the ICO to get enough investment to build out your platform, when you have a fully functioning platform, who still needs investment?

And if a platform is a prerequisite: Just build the barest possible platform MVP, much like a pre-launch landing page.

Nice quip. To stick with analogy: Some people in this thread are in the 70s, telling record companies to ignore the disco genre entirely, because it is a fad that can't last more than a decade. Instead, telling them to stick with what they know: 50s rock and roll.

A slot machine is known to give a 200% ROI and allow a single pull each day. You play this slot machine every day for 500 days, until you notice it stops rewarding you.

Then someone says: "Look I told you so, I've been telling everyone for 2000 days now: This slot machine will crash one day!". And you say: "Ok. You were right. Guess the party couldn't last forever. Thanks for the warning!". Out of habit you play for 30 more days, but the rewards stay gone, so you exit with some nice profit.

Meanwhile, the other person knew of the existence of a highly profitable slot machine, while it was still profitable, but never actually played it, because they feared that one day it may not be profitable anymore.

Agreed, and there probably will be a year where nearly all coins tank. It would be foolish to invest all your profits back into the market, year after year.

But should this stop you (or any investment firm) to seriously look at the profit potential here? What do you get for correctly calling the bubble in 3 years? Nothing.

I agree with:

> The crypto market is still niche. There are stocks that make 100-1000% performance. But the stock market is "saturated" for representing assets, equities and companies. So its growth is limited.

so I do not see how my post was wrong. These are the numbers. With such numbers, it would be foolish to discard the crypto market as "too volatile" and stick with stocks.

There are crypto coins that did way better than Strat, but there was not enough volume to make a decent profit. Even Doge did 260%. The only "loser" is STEEM with a 80% ROI.

ROI of creating an investment portfolio 1 year ago, and selling today:

- All Bitcoin: ~500%

- Mix of top market: ~2800%

- All Strat: ~13500%

Meanwhile, stock investors call 12% a good year.

> why it took them this long

There is no direct business value in banning users from your platform. In fact, doing so is a short-term net negative.

This is also why Twitter was so slow to ban bots: you gain a fraction of satisfaction for your users that interact with annoying bots, at the cost of dwindling user numbers.

> suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview

Because highly visible users of their platform (verified celebrities) started DMing the CEO and threatened to leave if bullies were not dealt with. Creating a safe space for the social elite is very much adding business value to Twitter and makes investors happy.

I think Twitter just awaited the US government reaction, and took as long as the law / future business prospects allowed them. That Twitter propaganda has become a major problem for the intelligence agencies and anti-terrorism units is evident. It takes a long time to properly deal with these problems, just like Twitter will probably take years to combat astro-turfing bots meddling with a foreign election (which seems to me, the logical next step in the evolution of mass automatic banning of problematic accounts).