You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: An Unexpected Status Update For @berniesanders Upvote Bot @randowhale (+ next steps)
If blockchain is meant to be open so that everyone can see what is going on, then why is there issue with shinning the light on issue?
I'll ask again, for those who are whales, why not get the bot issue fixed on Steem? It would only take two simple fixes, one of which should have already been in place.
- Remove upvote for other apps by allowing only Steemit the official app key for using it.
- Require a quick human validate, like what Binance uses, before an upvote happens.
If people are abusing the Rewards Pool via bots, then the cure would be to remove all bots.
You know what I just thought about: Bots should be charged with a tax instead of locking them out completely. First you have to pay something like 2+2 SBD&Steem to get an access (and lock out Pakistanis with bot farms) and after that you have to pay a revenue based tax like 50% of all rewards you make with the bot. Payments are every day and before you only get access when the payment has been made.
The tax rate could be adapted to the overall bot activity and the tax money goes to steemit projects.
But then you have to verify it is a bot or not.
Wouldn't that work via the access point for bots? For apparent reasons, I had to look into it today and if you want to run a bot, you need the "steem module". That could be individualized and you get an access code if you pay a fee.
Are you seriously THAT fucking stupid? The "steem module". HAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You seriously know NOTHING about Steem and blockchains, do you?? Wow, you are a useless bitch. This is going to be easier than I thought.
They have no idea. All this would be funny, if it wasn't so sad in illuminating how fucking clueless so many users are here about what in the hell they have signed themselves up for.
How about you explain it better?
Yeah the meme above is accurate, explaining it is not an effective use of my time. How about you read the thousands of posts on how this place works, or maybe the white paper or even the blue paper.
You probably think Stinc is in charge of how things work too. Because you have no clue what a dPOS block chain is or how it works, and how @berniesanders is about to school the living dickens out of you on the topic.
I enjoy these shows.
I know about triggering you.
@doodlebot is adorable.
Only one self-upvote with 8 Cents... come on, you can do more than that, can't you?
Registering to use the API goes back to me saying that only Steemit would get the upvote capability because it would be the only one with the correct key and secret to access it.
Centralize the decentralized network, place all the control in the single most INEPT AND INCOMPETENT ux/ui interface builder "STINC" and destroy the entire concept of a decentralized block chain in the doing, while in essence, chasing ghosts because you cannot tell what is a bot account or not in the first place in any possible way.
Wow the dumb ass misconceptions are strong here.
Okay.
What do you propose to kill the bots, that are destroying the entire system? Two-Factor authorization for each upvote? What would be the solution to eliminating the main annoyance with Steem and pretty much every social media out today?
Or is a decentralized network just a dream and it won't work in reality as shown with Steem.
A system based approach is too much expected from the developers, I guess. At least for now, I see no way into getting them into this.
But what might be a better way is to get upvote bots to adapt their conditions. Meaning, you could force them into limiting the age of posts to maybe 36-48 hours and don't accept requests beyond 3-5$. This would take a good part of the sting out of the Steemit flesh, I believe. According to a recent post by @paulag, bots make up about 25% of the rewards on the platform. Getting that down to 10% and leaving it there would be much and I think you can do that with these time+money limitations.
Another aspect could be to force upvote bots into only accepting (or paying) SP delegations to a certain threshold. Personally, I think 100k SP should be enough - @boomerang would pay for that >150 $ per day! Everything beyond that should be cut off to make sure the majority of the money gets redistributed within the system and not dumped on the market or ending up on holding accounts.
I'm confident, my strategy would work there too. But that's something for another day;-)
Ignore the whiny bitch. Look at his wallet, he doesn't have enough SP to buy dinner let alone have any effect flagging you. He also has done nothing but make empty threats he cannot back up. Not a single flag given. Why? Because he's a pussy. Flag the pussy.
You're a motherfucking retard. Just because you're poor doesn't mean everyone else should suffer and the system should be limited.
Here's another option: don't be poor.