You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The winners and losers of living in a decentralized community
This has never really been a decentralized platform.
And to be frank I was not at all impressed with the governance structure.
imho the old regime was doing all it could to prevent mass adoption.
Maybe the New Regime actually wants to build something helpful to the world. But maybe not, only time will tell.
The new regime wants to make money for the new regime in the same way as Google, Facebook and Microsoft. They don't care about you or me and they'll never know who the users actually are - we are all just numbers to them.
lol
The last crew didnt care ether! : )
The new crew may care about growth and increasing adoption. The last crew actively worked against growth and mass adoption. How else could you interpret fake flag wars and the EIP ?
just yesterday I saw top twenty witnesses flagging Bounty because they get 1 to 3 $ pay outs ! That kind of behavior can only damage the platform. It will be great if all that comes to a stop
The EIP and downvotes are a protection of proof of brain. It never was proof of activity.
One of the stated aims of the EIP was to normalize flags.
Normalizing abuse is not a positive thing. Out of that, we get accounts like Bounty being flagged for receiving votes of between 1 and 3 $
This is clear evidence of centralization at its worst.
So now we can get on with growing the platform with real users for the first time in years
If you take a group of kids and you give them each a daily allotment of small candies they can either eat themselves or give to other kids to appreciate their art-project-performance-journal, that's all well and good, but then when you give them all squirt-guns to soak the faces of art-project-performance-journals they DON'T like, THAT MEANS THAT EVEN THE IDIOT KIDS GET TO SOAK PEOPLE OUT OF SPITE.
More flags =/= more "justice".
Waytruthlight quit posting two years ago because they were getting unfairly downvoted. Now they just downvote other people out of spite.
This is an awesome model.
Downvote people so they stop posting and just stay mad for two years downvoting random accounts so they get mad and stop posting and just stay mad for two years downvoting random accounts so they get mad and stop posting...
This BOOSTS THE REWARD POOL which gets scooped into the hands of the TOP EARNERS.
It's a WIN-WIN!!!!
nOW, how do we onboard new users..?
Oh, yes, tell the newbz some evil people are posting nasty stuff on steemit and they need to open an account so they can DOWNVOTE them!!!
Especially the water gun part.
I agree with your logic but without downvotes we have nothing to prevent large scale automated abuse and plagiarism earning.
That's a much worse situation to end up in, unless you can activate so much stake to actively curate that their minimal earnings become all below dust vote levels and the possible scale they could generate doesn't matter anymore.
The biggest problem is
humans like to behaviorally sucka middle ground solution needs to be found between satisfying emotions and still having tools to fight genuine abuse.The EIP curve is a solid start but want to make it even harsher for lower appreciated content (fight automated farms) that's also harsh on not discovered creators who post for $TU 0.5-3.
It's a very complicated topic and many opposing positions can all be right in their analysis and sentiment.
!ENGAGE 35
Do you like private property?
Give "downvote power" exclusively to the witnesses.
That way, we can at least "vote" for the witnesses we agree with (I guess you can't "downvote" witnesses currently, doesn't that sort of break your "must-have-downvotes" moral axiom?)
As for the "rampant plagiarism" "problem", cheetahbot already provides links to the "original content", which sort of automatically "fixes" the "problem". Anybody who forgets to post attribution links will be thankful for cheetahbot's helpful link posts. No downvoting required.
And to fix the zombie-sock-puppet "problem", just ask @steemit to stop automatically delegating 15 steem-power to every newb. This would essentially make steemit "invite only" because you'd either have to buy some steem yourself or be sponsored by an existing account. Don't forget gm.ail and fa.cebuk (and others) were "invite only" when they were getting started, it builds "community" and gives an air of "exclusivity" and "prestige".
And to fix the self-voters, disable self-voting (most websites already disable self-voting automatically).
And to fix the circle-jerks, disable voting on the same account more than once every seven days.
You could set the parameters to only allow a maximum of 25% of your running seven day votes (by total amount of steem) to be granted to the same account.
https://steemit.com/ethics/@randr10/q5zczj
ALSO, LOWERING THE MINIMUM PAYOUT TO 0.001 (would remove the financial incentive to downvote) AND FLATTENING THE CURATION REWARDS (NO MORE INCENTIVE BONUS FOR VOTING IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES) WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO "FIXING" STEEMIT (are the band-wagon voters really "adding-value"?)
SOURCE CONVO
I see a lot of misconceptions here. But will be brief in reply.
Witness voting and "must-have-downvotes" are two entirely different processes. Yes, you can downvote any comment/post created by a witness. No, witness voting does not have a downvote mechanic. I think one needs not explaining why not in a "delegated proof of stake" system.
You underestimate the degree of automated spam abuse which has required so far resource credits and EIP already. Lowering dustvote rewards payout to 0.001 would be counter productive and only increase the earnings by such actors again.
A certain degree of abuse/maximization will always happen. It can not be fully nuked and that should not become the priority either. A system which is well-designed will minimize the scale of the abuse, with a scaling solution.
Emotional butthurt will always happen over downvotes. That proves a misunderstanding about the rewards belonging to the community until a post is payed out.
Humans bound to maximize will always find ways. Same with circle jerks. The latter are very hard to recognize as patterns without high levels of false positive and thus collateral automated damage. That is why also manual downvotes
Dapps, and future SMTs, can decide their own rewards system.
Sybill attacks (alt accounts) are a reality. If I can dedicate only 25% to an account, then I create 16 accounts if I want to maximize. (Don't get me started about IP recognition aso, maximizers know VPNs)
Also, there is no reward for activity. Unless you're an actifit user.
I understand that downvotes are a fickle thing to understand and accept. They are indeed weird and may seem hostile, poor design even, because entitlement over rewards can easily grow. But, the chain owes nobody anything until the final rewards amount is locked and subsequently paid out.
I too would much prefer that retaliation and similar sentiments were not part of the human modus operandi but they are. That still doesn't mean the system is flawed because many people fail to understand that nobody is owed anything by the chain. It's a weakness in the system because humans.
If you have a system which both understands the scale of (automated/spam) abuse and finding the middle path I will gladly read it.
So far you don't. That mostly because you don't seem to acknowledge the vast amount of maximization/abuse which needs countered as much as possible (because takes away potential rewards of real users).
Imagine a city in the desert.
The city has a central well. Actually, it's a cistern.
The cistern is refilled once a week.
Citizens who invest in "cistern-corp" get a daily share of water proportional to their investment, the more you invest, the larger your daily share.
Citizens can give this daily share to others, or to themselves.
Citizens CAN be bribed and or bullied into giving their daily share to specific individuals.
Citizens can create posts on which to hang collection buckets.
The posts with the fullest buckets grow taller and are therefore visible to more citizens, attracting more attention and receive more contributions.
At the end of the seven day cistern cycle, any water that has not been distributed, or that has fallen through the grid-floor (below minimum contributions) gets dolled out to the tallest posts, with the tallest post getting the largest cut of the "leftover-pie" and any post with less than 20 droplets gets no additional cut of the "leftover-pie".
This system is fair because it gives the most to the (good-smart) rich and nothing to the (evil-dumb) poor.
This system is fair because instead of giving everyone a boost proportional to their investment, it gives MORE to the rich and STEALS from the poor.
@logiczombie you have received
35 ENGAGEfrom @fknmayhem!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
The EIP was a good move and there is nothing wrong with using downvotes.
I am curious, what about the EIP do you see as good and why do you see flags as good?
I look at it and laugh
You seem to have a very narrow view of what happens on steem. Perhaps you should get out more and discover what else is out there?
lol maybe you are right.
Yea me to. That is most of the reason I ask why people think its good to flag other users. Why do you see the EIP as a positive?
I dont find many coherent answers.
lets say I ask you why its a good idea to be flagging a specific account.
You may say because they are receiving between 1 - 3 $ in upvotes
But how is that negative action protecting the platform ? Its not protecting the platform at all. The only people it benefits are the people who already hold the largest Stake.
I am not sure where you live, but perhaps you should spend time in some of the most violent places on earth where there is no law and order. Not so great I imagine.
On Steem, we are the law and order. People like to live in peace, but just don't want to get their hands dirty.
lol maybe you are right.
Yea me to. That is most of the reason I ask why people think its good to flag other users. Why do you see the EIP as a positive?
I dont find many coherent answers.
lets say I ask you why its a good idea to be flagging a specific account.
You may say because they are receiving between 1 - 3 $ in upvotes
But how is that negative action protecting the platform ? Its not protecting the platform at all. The only people it benefits are the people who already hold the largest Stake.
They don't even get a "real" cut of the reward-pool-pie unless their pending payout is over $20.00 steem (but I guess every tiny scrap counts!)
If you want more newbz to join steem, you're going to need to be able to answer their questions.
Imagine a simple thought experiment, you @tarazkp, start a new account, do not link it to your current accounts in any way. Don't make an "introduceyourself" post unless someone suggests it to you first (most newbz don't know about that). Post stuff you find interesting for 30 days (not necessarily every single day of course). Reply only to people who comment on your posts (or who follow you). Only follow people who follow you first. See how much steem you earn in 30 days.
Then you'll know if people like you for your rep and formidable steem-power or if they like you for your "high-quality-original-content".
And you might also have some inkling of why all the newbz feel like they're trying to break-into a private club.
I could not disagree with you more : ) the only exception I would consent to would be serious plagiarism.
You can disagree, that is your right. I have my own experiences here, and they tell me that the downvotes are necessary in an economy, in the same way that in society there is policing to discourage thieves. There are always bad actors, at least on steem we didn't have to have a central authority to tell us who they were. Perhaps you will be happier under a centralized authority that rewards those who jump through the hoops.
I prefer to take responsibility for my own environment.
No nether would I @joeyarnoldvn. But under some conditions I may flag it : )
how about you?
I think you answered to the wrong comment
lol thanks
I would not criminalize plagiarism.
No nether would I @joeyarnoldvn. But under some conditions I may flag it : )
how about you?
people can plagiarize all they want, but they don't have to earn STEEM on it.
Sometimes, you don't know what is plagiarized or not and you might accidentally upvote something. For example, if I say "HELLO." Is that plagiarism? You might say no. Just one word. What about, "HELLO THERE?" That is a quote from Kenobi from Star Wars. Imagine if that quote was copyrighted. That was just two words. What about "How are you doing?" That is four words. See where I am going with this? I can continue this game. We can go up to ten words. We could go up maybe 100 words or even more. We can go up and up. The question would be in regards to where the line is. We can talk about how many words it takes or what it might take. It is a very complex issue. Even the Emperor was a clone it seems.
exactly ....but who actually knows users anyways before THE TRON madness , especially the loyal ones :)
little sarcasm allowed hopefully
I knows them alls. :D
Hope you are well, despite the madness :*
I know that YOU do know 😁 I am so proud of our community and hey ! I am cancerfree and back in power as well
Cancer free. Good job.