As it is reflected in most of the major cryptocurrencies, it really has nothing to do with ethereum per se. Personally, I would (and do ;-) buy into cryptocurrency whenever it looks low, sell when it looks

Write an article! This is going on indefinitely. At worst, I'm willing to critique the article . . . .

Thanks! Actually, household dust has even more yummy ingredients if you have pets . . . .

Could you provide a link to the interview? They claim that EVIL stands for Electronic Virtual Intelligent Life rather than sinister . . . . (or maybe I'm affiliated with them and in on it too . . . . ;-)

What specifically would you propose?

Look at the explanations as to how voting power decays and is replenished. You DON'T go anywhere close to zero if you vote more than ten times. If you vote 20/day, your voting power stabilizes around 50%.

You're funny . . . . a) you knew what I meant and ignored the question b) your smart-ass answer is wrong (votes decay exponentially and it takes far more than ten/day to reach anything close to worthlessness).

Do you ever wonder what would happen if everyone self-upvoted themselves a hundred times a day?

Because your wallet is more important than everything else?

I like your second and third ideas -- subtle and effective!

Good thing "we're here to help", no?

Yes. That is the plan . . . . (and we will be the ones to develop those quantum computers for ourselves)

Altruistic punishment is part of a truly free market. Self-organized penalties are part of a free market. You said "I bet" followed by an incorrect statement. I therefore said "You lost

Upping your own posts is a good thing. If you spend a lot of time and effort on your comments -- upping them is a good thing. The bad thing is people who post half a dozen or more very short comments a

Up-voting your own posts that represent a lot of work is reasonable. Up-voting a half dozen or more small comments PER DAY is not.

I agree with the majority of the witnesses that the hard-fork was too much, too fast. On the other hand, n-squared rewards was abusive and went on FAR too long -- so rolling back the change would be a

There are good bots and bad bots -- the difference is the behavior they display. The behavior displayed by the user (and her friends, sock-puppets or bots) was discourteous and should be discouraged.

So . . . . only 3 of the 10 people on the list upvote other people's comments as frequently as their own -- and in all three cases, it looks like virtually exactly one-to-one. It's also somewhat incredible

EDIT: Upon further thought, I'm not sure that the curation rewards are affected (they are if curation rewards AREN'T given for comments; they are NOT affected if they are -- which, I believe is the case).

No! I missed that. I should have a chart with him! Thank you! (+1 from my alter-ego coming shortly)