the hardfork removes the 4 per day post limit from the protocol level, but steemit.com web site can implement UI upgrades to deal with spam and users who abuse no posting limit, the goal of hf17 is to simplify what happens on the blockchain, making it run more efficient, and put the complicated solutions on the web site
Don't like just removing it. I think it should be based on rep. This would allow established members to post more while keeping spam down from people just doing copy/paste fishing for votes.
Reputation is not a consensus level feature of the blockchain. Meaning it is derived from state, but does not impact state. We have no plans on making it consensus. There were bugs in the bandwidth rate limiting algorithm that have since been fixed. Normal use should not be affected, but spamming most definitely will.
I believe there's a second layer of limitations using the "bandwidth" values associated with each account that would hopefully prevent this.
Though I seem to remember somewhere that was getting removed as well. It would be nice to have some clarity on what would prevent this when the post rate limit is removed.
I'm against this. Recently I've seen some users post 40 times a day and make $2( mostly autovote) on every post, without the posting rate limit these users would make $80 a day for posting very average content with no effort.If everyone start doing this the site will be full of garbage stuff. The limit encourages users to write quality content.
I would agree with extending it a bit ( 5-10 posts) but not removing it entirely.
edit: This feature should be called "remove earning limit" as it does not restrict people from posting.
The main justification for it is that the current model works well for 'blogging' but it is not very well suited for twitter type content. The idea is to put the burden of allocating rewards properly on the community / voters. In theory, if someone is posting a lot of crap posts and getting constantly upvoted - users should be able to detect that and downvote.
That is not completely accurate. A downvote affects the post payout based solely on SP. It only affects the reputation though if the person has a higher reputation.
I fear that some users could feel the "pressure" to produce as many as possible articles (to earn as much as possible) so that the quality of the articles may decrease. We may see even more "one-image-posts" with very short texts ...
How about paying a small fee (aka 'need of promotion') for every post above a certain limit instead? Let's say, every user has one or two posts free per day and after that needs to promote the post.
the hardfork removes the 4 per day post limit from the protocol level, but steemit.com web site can implement UI upgrades to deal with spam and users who abuse no posting limit, the goal of hf17 is to simplify what happens on the blockchain, making it run more efficient, and put the complicated solutions on the web site
Don't like just removing it. I think it should be based on rep. This would allow established members to post more while keeping spam down from people just doing copy/paste fishing for votes.
Reputation is not a consensus level feature of the blockchain. Meaning it is derived from state, but does not impact state. We have no plans on making it consensus. There were bugs in the bandwidth rate limiting algorithm that have since been fixed. Normal use should not be affected, but spamming most definitely will.
That might be a good next step - but I think removing it and seeing what happens might be a first good step!
People with bots posting thousands of youtube vids a day comes to mind.
I believe there's a second layer of limitations using the "bandwidth" values associated with each account that would hopefully prevent this.
Though I seem to remember somewhere that was getting removed as well. It would be nice to have some clarity on what would prevent this when the post rate limit is removed.
I agree @jesta
Good idea @fubar-bdhr. More rep = the more you can post
I'm against this. Recently I've seen some users post 40 times a day and make $2( mostly autovote) on every post, without the posting rate limit these users would make $80 a day for posting very average content with no effort.If everyone start doing this the site will be full of garbage stuff. The limit encourages users to write quality content.
I would agree with extending it a bit ( 5-10 posts) but not removing it entirely.
edit: This feature should be called "remove earning limit" as it does not restrict people from posting.
I think the post limit should be based on Rep
The main justification for it is that the current model works well for 'blogging' but it is not very well suited for twitter type content. The idea is to put the burden of allocating rewards properly on the community / voters. In theory, if someone is posting a lot of crap posts and getting constantly upvoted - users should be able to detect that and downvote.
@timcliff the downvote can do so only those who have a higher level ... if so can not be said that, in theory, everyone can settle the question .. ..
That is not completely accurate. A downvote affects the post payout based solely on SP. It only affects the reputation though if the person has a higher reputation.
This is a bot problem and/or autovote problem, not a posting limit problem.
There are good ways to do more than 4 posts / days, as timcliff say.
In a situation where on certain apps people would post frequently(like instagram) i believe it would be preferable to remove this limit.
Agreed, for scalability, no post limit is a must or make the post limit based on Rep.
Absolutely contrary. You will see a lot of junk among the topics
I fear that some users could feel the "pressure" to produce as many as possible articles (to earn as much as possible) so that the quality of the articles may decrease. We may see even more "one-image-posts" with very short texts ...
How about paying a small fee (aka 'need of promotion') for every post above a certain limit instead? Let's say, every user has one or two posts free per day and after that needs to promote the post.
Great idea to me @shortcut - I would be in for that!
Not a fan of this at all, we have enough spam as it is
(I misunderstood the parent's writing) .... I want to see it all ... Is there a way to cancel the upvote in the comment?
Click on upvote again, and you will see an option to remove your vote