Sort:  

It does. To truly make it anywhere on Steemit requires either an investment of money or an investment in quality content and lots of time. Even if spammers weren't flagged, they still would only individually get a small portion of the reward pool because self voting isn't as profitable as you think. In my opinion, there are much worse problems involving bot-net spammers; something that is much more sophisticated than your generic sit-and-post-10-times-a-day-spammer. Flagging is apparently not the answer for this type of spam. I wonder if flagging is effective at all.

You bring up good points, and ones I've been wondering, too. I've looked to see if someone actually looked into this and posted their results, but so far, I haven't found anything. I need to learn more about how to query the blockchain for more than just account names I already know.

At any rate, if it's annoying clutter but unprofitable for the spammers, then while it makes Steemit look bad and potentially less attractive perhaps, the rewardpool is relatively unabused. If it is taking a significant toll, then there needs to be an efficient way to combat it. Flagging, education, what have you.

Kind of sounds cavalier and all about the money, doesn't it? I really don't intend it that way. I do care about quality content.

I hate personally expending resources (which I don't have so I haven't attempted any flagging yet), or see others who do have resources expending so much, especially if it is either a losing battle or a an unseemly but low profit wasteland.

I think we all need to know that, and then maybe adjust strategies accordingly.

I agree! I was trying to read posts under the tag news the other day. One post I read, thought it well written, was about to upvote and comment when I realized it was just a copy/paste from a real news article. Then there are bots now that generate news posts? WTH? I won’t be looking in that tag again.

Not sure how I feel about that, but it's an interesting idea. I heard others say every transaction should cost money, for example sending memos (to stop memo spam) but that's a core feature of Steem is the lack of transaction fees.

Once it is 10 cents, it will slowly grow like Bitcoin fees have. Once the door is open, it will just become larger and larger.

Keeping the cost of entry free so all can participate vs. requiring some skin in the game. I can see the merits of both.

No fee to enter allows everyone in, spreading Steem and Steemit faster and to all parts of the world. Skin in the game might make people more thoughtful about what they post, but inevitably, as you say, it will go up and eventually make it too cost prohibitive, if not go all the way to the point where only those with lots of money can pay to play.

It's a dilemma, and it's really at the heart of not only the spam/plagiarism situation, but the debate over the 'proper distribution' of rewards. Having free entry makes the reward pool seem like monopoly money to a lot of people—even to those who should know better—and it's hard not to think of it like that when you haven't done something to acquire it.

I wish I had the answers. There's so much I feel I need to know. But at risk of overstating the obvious, this issue is only going to get worse when Velocity arrives.

Yeahhh if we could avoid becoming yet another miner-dominated coin that'd be greattt. Steemit already kind of requires at least an initial start-up cost for blog posts to get any visibility. Posting fees would kill the traction steemit has had in developing markets. I think steemit could be a good chance to help raise them up, we shouldn't try too hard to squish them before they've even gotten a chance to compete on an equal level. I know I for one would have difficulty in communicating in any of their native languages.

A tx fee sounds good to me too, the fees could be added to the reward pool. If you can't afford 10 cents to post your stuff into eternal blockchain, then I am not interested in your content - my 2 cents.