You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Moving to hive
in my opinion, it should be set up so that the net effect of user A voting on User B's posts, diminishes with each subsequent vote within a reasonable period of time (ie, a week, or a month, etc). That should apply whether up or down. 1 user should not be able to completely "make or break" another user.
If i vote for you, with my voting power, you'll get about 0.07. If i vote for you again within a day or so that reward should then be 0.035. after that, 0.0175, and so on. The same thing should happen when I vote for myself. Votes should be encouraged to be applied to others throughout the community, and not concentrated between few people.
I've argued for this concept as well, which you can find implemented in many games. "Diminishing Returns" is the concept, where each subsequent related action is less impactful than the last. Many others raised objections to the complex nature of how it would have to be implemented, but it would definitely reduce the impact one person should have over another.
The same effect could be applied to both up and down votes.
something being complex is no reason to not implement something - implementing a social network onto a blockchain is also pretty complex but they did that.....
lets hope sense prevails..
One of the other reasons was that you could simply bypass it with a little effort, at least in terms of taking rewards from the pool.
If User A continuously upvotes User B, and diminishing rewards is implemented, User B could just create 100 accounts and post once on each account, and User A could upvote all of those posts from different users to bypass the diminishing returns.
That's one way around it.
However, it would still prevent User A from constantly upvoting B, and it would prevent downvoting in the same manner.
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...
Yea but if user B used all 100 accounts to do it each time, it would be the same effect. And if B only used 1 account at a time, then the abuse was reduced by 100. Not bad.
That's a pretty good idea. I suggested something similar in the past.
it's an obvious flaw and it needs attention. If someone is rich enough, they can pretty much take over the whole network. you've got a pretty high reputation, and a fair bit of voting weight behind you - but someone can pretty much wipe out your reputation with a sustained attack if they have enough voting weight.
At my level - it wouldn't take much to wipe out my reputation. It's a form of censorship, as if i piss off the wrong whale they can effectively silence me.