You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.

in #informationwar6 years ago

It's not that centralized solutions are bad or unwise, so one way to deal with it is to ban. That way the integrity of curation sustains and isn't discarded for a competition vs bots in aims at doing what bots do cheaper to beat bots. In that way, a centralized approach works swiftly and maintains the premise of flagging as well, which is to deal with abuse, aka make abuse costly. It seems that a free market approach of pretty much "if you can't beat them, join them" attitudes would turn this into something other than a tokanized social media, but into a pay for play kinda "advertising" marketplace.

I understand that centralization creates positions of power that get seemingly always abused, but if everything is transparent then the chance of abuse requires a lot more than threats or bullying to be pulled off, and even with finness there is always scrutiny and caution because of the crowd, as a mere utterance of the evil centralized label usually evokes all kinds of remarks about how this place is decentralized, so abuse is highly unlikely or audaciousAF. Even so, the benefits to risks ratios could be tipped to make it less likely, the eventuality of which cannot though ultimately be denied as if given a long enough timeline someone will successfully usurp power and complete control through some enclave of authority in the system, but that's not the same with giving everyone with a certain rep/participation-score tools to initiate a moderating action that others can freely take part in and requires a certain threshold for others validate the act but which could also incur penalties just like the one who initiated the moderating act which gives everyone the tools to respond to abuse, which is what bidbots/self voting is and why flagging exists instead of upvoting only.

Posted using Partiko Android

Sort:  

In order to ban and censor things the entire service has to be centralized. Steem isn't centralized in that way so banning things is impossible. This witnesses will process every valid transaction. There is no censorship, there are no invalid transactions as long as the core rules of the platform are followed. A transaction signed with a valid key will be executed.


I am not advocating a

if you can't beat them, join them

solution


I'm saying that every centralized service on Steem can be destroyed with a decentralized solution. The first and easiest step in the right direction is to decentralize the service itself and undercut every single middle-man leech tapping the pipeline. If users want to buy votes, they at least shouldn't get taxed by a whale.

Make the service free and we will find that less coins are being dumped on exchanges and more minnows and plankton are powering up. The chance of a whale dumping 1000 coins on the market is far greater than the chance of 1000 plankton dumping 1 coin on the market.

Force the free-market to bear the brunt of volatile risk. Bid-bot operators are basically forced to charge for their service because there is no way they'll run it at a loss. By decentralizing the risk that fee disappears, as the risk is distributed to every buyer and selling in the network.

The second more difficult step is to decentralize the trending tab. If everyone sees their own custom trending tab it will be much harder to game by purely pumping up payout value. In fact, some users will shadow-blacklist vote sellers so that people who buy votes actually have a lower chance of appearing on these custom trending tabs.

All of Steem's problems are caused by centralized solutions and can be fixed with decentralized ones.

Not necessarily, the top 19 witnesses can ban and censor technically through a consensus mechanism. They can rewrite the chain.

Posted using Partiko Android

So every witness has to agree and then on top of that hope they don't splinter the community and cause a fork in the chain. Seems pretty slim.

All top 19 have to agree. What do you think Dan was talking about when he made this remark?

https://steemit.com/blockchain/@the-ego-is-you/re-dantheman-the-problem-with-byzantine-generals-20170130t142131108z

Posted using Partiko Android

Very nice. The problem with @dan's love of DPOS is that it makes him blind. Don't get me wrong, it is amazing that he created a new consensus algorithm, but if one group has a lot of coins and they use their influence to rig elections, then it isn't hard to elect 20 witnesses that are all corrupt.

Luckily, crypto is so new and unsettled that literally no one in the space want to do anything that might kill it. However, once crypto goes x1000 again and becomes unkillable, we might see the corruption start to seep in.

Lets start with this: is banning/freezing accounts, removing data from the chain and otherwise moderate how people can interact with the chain a bad idea and if so why, and if not is it then a good idea and why, considering that it's implemented as decentralized, not necessarily dPOS but proof of participation and through participation score levels?

Posted using Partiko Android

Literally anything can happen on any chain with enough consensus. I'm having trouble seeing the point here. Ethereum hard forked to steal back funds from a single hacker.

With a proof-of-stake implementation all that really matters is how trustworthy the stakeholders are. Luckily they have a built-in financial incentive to be trustworthy or their stake becomes worth less.

I want to know why you think we ought to not use blocking banning and otherwise moderate.

Posted using Partiko Android