You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Moving to hive
my answer to that would be for that kind of activity to be considered abuse - and for the witnesses to have the power to deal with accounts created soley for abuse.
it also makes it a lot harder though. user A would have to keep creating 100 accounts every couple of weeks as those first 100 accounts would lose effectiveness.
Well, diminishing returns wouldn't last forever between User A + User B I'd imagine. I don't think you should be penalized for voting for the same person once a week for a year for example. The diminishing aspect itself might kick in on the 2nd or 3rd vote for the same person on the same day, but it'd also replenish over time. So they'd eventually be able to recycle through those 100 accounts as the effects started to wear off.
It does make it harder, but in the end it doesn't solve the problem fully. It would however prevent people from focusing and picking on specific individuals, which also would make it harder to fight actual abuse :(
The entire situation is hard to find a proper solution for, which is why no one has jumped on implementing a solution.
At this point I think the entire rewards system may need to be fundamentally changed, maybe built from the ground up, in order to truly solve the problems at hand.
Originally posted in the /f/undefined forum on chainBB.com (learn more).
I pretty much agree and acknowledge all of what you say - i think we're on the same page except you obviously have a deeper understanding than I. it makes sense though.
I'm guessing that we're not likely to see a reward system rewrite any time soon, given how drastic event that would be, the effort required, and the witness consensus, would make it almost impossible - so perhaps an incremental improvement as per our suggestion would be the way to go - even if not the perfect implementation...