You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: De-Spinning the Spin - The real truth
Downvotes are 100% required. Removing any (or one of the only) forms of dissent / discussion is a terrible idea.
Thanks for your efforts during this shitstorm the last few days / weeks.
In reference to (1:08:44) we should give people "moderator rights" to their own personal blogs. We should give individuals the same rights as the "moderated tag admins". That way, people could mute (or screen) comments on their own blogs and block individuals from commenting (or opt-into blacklists) on their own blogs.
It would also be nice to be able to opt-into "mute" blacklists for people who don't want to see "trash" (it could mirror the nsfw toggle feature).
We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses.
Multiple "mute" blacklists that can be toggled off and on (like the nsfw toggle) would seem to fix both the "spammy" problem and diverting the reward-pool to witnesses and implementing a quick-tipping-system would solve the "reward-pool-self-voting-11%-interest-farming" problem.
It would also be nice to be able to quick-tip posts older than seven days!!
I agree completely with your proposals up until this one:
That kills the Steem.
Regardless, it no longer matters IMHO, as Steem has been reduced to possession by Tron in fact. Steem is kill atm.
If Tron and the exchanges execute code that prevents their exercise of governance, and code that prevents that same ability of any other stakeholder to undertake the Sybil Attack that has been successfully executed presently on Steem, then we may be able to bring it back to life.
How likely do you think that is?
When that has been accomplished, the proposals you suggest may be relevant. Currently they're proposals regarding a dead chain. Justin can just do whatever he wants with Steem today.
Justin doesn't control 17 of the top 20 witnesses at the moment, so no changes can be implemented (stalemate).
The exchanges backed off their votes - but remain powered up. They can swing it his way at will. The illusion of decentralization is just an illusion.
@ned had this stake for four years and never assumed control of governance. That doesn't mean he didn't have the stake.
But in order to vote, they have to power down and that appears to take several months to do, to power down.
No. To vote for witness you must be powered up. Powering down removes your ability to cast votes of any kind on Steem
Oh ok. I'm sorry, I've been confused by the Tron Steem Drama. I'm trying to understand the details. For example, I'm guessing that crypto exchange websites have Steemit accounts. I'm not totally sure how it all works, but I am guessing that these Steemit accounts work as the middle man between their exchanges and the Steem blockchain. I have sent some Steem to Poloniex and Bittrex through their Steem accounts.
So, based on what I know, based on what I've experienced, it seems that these accounts have access to Steem on their exchanges and access to the Steem blockchain. So, I believe that they took some Steem from some exchanges that they had access to and powered up their SP on their Steem accounts to then vote for witnesses.
I believe Tron Overlord Justin Sun was upset as he really wanted to help those exchanges power down as fast as possible so that they could return Steem back to the random people they borrowed or stole from. I believe that some of those people did not know that the exchanges were doing this and that Roy Liu and Justin and Tron really wanted to rush things along to make sure that nobody notices. But then if they power down, then they can't continue to vote with the same voting power. And I am guessing that people can try to vote back in the previous witnesses back into the top twenty or top thirty spot as they did to an extent last week.
I feel like Tron is in a sticky situation. I don't know what I would do in their situation. Do you keep the SP so you can continue voting or do you return the Steem to the people and admit to the actions that they took. Well, either way, they did what they did.
Negotiate with the "real" witnesses. Buy the steem-power you want and buy liquid steem to replace the stolen steem (on the exchanges).
"We should get rid of the reward-pool and just give it to the witnesses."
Please explain.
There are plenty of sites where you can blog. Steem creates a new paradigm, where you don't just provide information to your peers, but your peers can provide Steem to you for doing so. This elevates society, and our speech, our communications to each other, to the same socioeconomic level as working for wages, or investing in commercial undertakings.
Steem isn't just blogging for rewards. It's a new socioeconomic paradigm enables peers to create mutual economic support, outside of legacy financial mechanisms captive to predatory institutions and persons, and replaces hierarchical neofeudalism. Steem replaces overlords and serfs with peers and decentralization by it's blogging for rewards mechanism.
If it's done right, it's a model that can be a vector for change more powerful than we commonly imagine. Eliminating author rewards eliminates that paradigm changing potential.
Go ahead and eliminate curation rewards. They're only parasitic. Steem is far from perfect, but like a lungfish clumsily flopping about in the muck catching bugs out of water, brings new possibilities to the world.
Steem-power still generates 8% APR, which could be used as "free tips/upvotes".
The reward-pool is just an additional 3% distributed interest anyway.
I don't think that shifting the source of the upvote-tips would "kill the steem".
There is actually a proposal in the DAO to create blacklist API. You could promote it and vote it up.
What I'm proposing is a mute blacklist that users can opt-into and or opt-out of.
The current blacklist is basically a mechanism that lets some unspecified party or parties pick and choose which accounts I can see and which accounts I cannot see for capricious and opaque "reasons".
I currently have no choice to opt-out.
I can opt-into and opt-out of the "nsfw" mute blacklist, I'd like to have the same choice regarding any other blacklist that's imposed on my account.
The nsfw is just a tag people use to identify their posts as being not safe for work. You don't see it because UIs handle this tag specially. I have never seen it referred to as a 'blacklist'.
If I want to no longer see profanity, we could tell @SteemPeak developers that it would be good to have a profanity tag that users could put on their posts. This is the honors system and it's a good idea. The poster has to use the tag and you count on them. If they don't do it, then what?
Blacklists are by their nature not something members of the said list opt into. It's for the maintainers of the steem sites that opt in to the black lists. This is the UI level. Talk to the maintainers of the UIs to no longer subscribe to these lists or appeal to the list maintainers. As a third option you can support a competing Steem site. The users that support my web-site will be the whales of that site. Those that do can maintain the black lists or make sure blacklists are opt-in only.
Take a look at https://www.steemfiles.com. It uses steem for logging in and shows you a price ticker. I could add features like browsing articles and posting, and the investors will never see their posts hidden on steemfiles.com. I could setup an investment scheme where twenty people invest 100 SBD and they get a site on the Steem blockchain that ignores flags. Rewards are on the blockchain level though so there is nothing I can do about that.
Yeah, I understand the "private-community-reward-pool" dynamic.
I'm only concerned about visibility.
Sign me up.
I'm pretty sure you can copy the steemit code (for free) and modify it to ignore rep and blacklists.
This is a choice the maintainers of steemit.com, steempeak.com, busy.org, the esteem App, or 3speak, steemfiles.com make. There is nothing you or I can do about that.
However, you can make it your choice by changing you UI that doesn't subscribe to the blacklist you are on. If 3speak subscribes to a black list you are on, you can decide to not use 3speak.
Just because I advocate for improvements, that doesn't mean it isn't currently the best among alternatives.
I love how everyone around here instantly jumps to "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT".
Don't you think there's some room for improvement?
Yes, I do! I thought a lot of what you wrote.
Definitions are definitions though: I think the majority's definition 'blacklist' is:
A list of people who are prevented from doing or using something.
So with that out of the way. I like your reference to the 'nsfw' tag. Now this is a tag. There is another tag for worthless posts for experimenting. It's called spam. I used to write software that would talk to RPC nodes and software could write posts to the blockchain. The software would post a message that said 'test' and one of the tags was 'spam.' So, I wasn't flagged.
I think you could invent a new tag for your reasons they flagged you. Something that describes why it gets flagged and then try to get curators to not flag posts with that tag for that reason.
Black-lists are maintained by those who curate them and there is nothing we can do. I do think some of my posts are being unfairly flagged at times, so I can relate.
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply.
If comments are viewable by default and I "mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) blacklist.
If comments are hidden by default and I "un-mute" twenty accounts, that is a de facto (personal) whitelist.
I should be able to blacklist and whitelist MY OWN VIEWING OPTIONS.
I should NOT be able to blacklist and whitelist EVERYONE'S VIEWING OPTIONS.
Perhaps low rep users could voluntarily add #unpopular or #misunderstood or #censorship to all their posts and comments. I wasn't aware of the #spam tag, that seems like a reasonable model.
Do you know how the current blacklists are created and maintained? Are they democratic or are they dictatorial?
Are certain accounts whitelisted (immune) from stemcleaners and buldawhale and cheetabot?
Don't use the hash mark '#' when talking about #tags. For example, I mentioned the 'spam' and 'nsfw' but I didn't put the '#' before them because the comment I made wasn't spam and it was safe for work. You just made your comment invisible to me. I think #censorship does apply to the topic.
When I first came here in 2016, there was a confirmation dialog that would open up when you chose the 'flag' button saying something like flags were for 'profanity, racism speech, and personal attacks.' This has changed.
@themarkymark has mentioned he does maintain one #blacklist and there is a #blacklist API which gives software access to this. He once said he only flags for abuse.
I have the beginnings of my own UI over at steemfiles.com. I could write something like #steemit that displays posts and allows comments. It seems that would be a fool's errand though.
It already exists and has been running for almost 3 years and is now integrated with Steemit.com & Steempeak.com.
Yes after commenting I read @stpthemarkymark post. I watched the interview videos with you. I learned you had organized several APIs for existing lists and the consequences of eliminating downvoting. You're staying on my witness list unless you get to the top three in which case, for strategy, I might remove to vote for another witness that needs it more.
Do please add 'opt in' functionality to the API for users.
Why would anyone opt in?
If no one wants to opt in, why force them in?
I would opt in to a blacklist that contained all of Bernie's accounts, if you dared to make it.
You do understand the purpose?
To pander to Bernie?
Srsly tho, if you have a problem with spam, do something about spam coming from his accounts. @iflagtrash is an obvious lapse in your voluntary oversight.
I disagree, depending on the details.