RE: 100 DAYS OF STEEM : Day 33 - Tackling Abuse on Steem - Part I - What is Abuse?
Limiting the number of posts per account will hit very active users and community bots as well.
Instead of limiting the number of posts one could introduce 'diminishing returns' which means one still could write as many posts as one wishes, but starting from a certain number of posts upvotes on every further posts would have a weaker effect than upvotes on previous posts. That means a very active author would earn less per post with an increasing number of posts (this effect could for example start after his second post per day) but still could earn anything.
Similarly one could try to prevent the effectivity of upvoting the same users again and again (circle voting). How about if after each vote on a specific account (including one's own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before.
If I upvote for example my wife, my daughter or my cat more than twice per day every following upvote for the same account would get weaker an weaker (like voting power is exhausting anyway already, just faster).
This would work, but it would come with a side effect. If I would create a few shit posts before posting a real masterpiece of a post, the good post might receive less rewards than the bad ones :)
As we discussed many times over the years, in my eyes this would be the ultimately perfect solution. Using something similar to the calculated CSI on SteemWorld as a factor, so that the voted
rshareswould be multiplied by it prior to subtracting them from the pool and adding them to the active votes.This would not eliminate all cases of abuse (for example, if someone owns many accounts with much SP and votes each day with a different one), but it would work very well for most common cases.
Then just publish the "shit posts" after the masterpiece? ;-) (Of course also the ability to receive full votes for posts would recover again after some time.)
Or maybe not post any "shit posts" at all? Seriously, if you yourself think a post is a shit post, then, it is a shit post...
You won't find any "shit post" from me (but sometimes kinds of humorous meant replies).
"Using something similar to the calculated CSI on SteemWorld as a factor, so that the voted rshares would be multiplied by it prior to subtracting them from the pool and adding them to the active votes."
Sorry but I think that it's not a good idea to use CSI on SteemWorld as in my opinion CSI isn't a reliable factor.
If I see that an account with 100% self-voting (no vote to anybody else just vote for the own account) has an CSI from 0.0 but other accounts has negative CSI, f.e. my account in the moment, than Steemworld consider it as better to vote 100% only your own account instead of voting for others.
How this can be a reliable factor ?
I think as long as you can claim for every approximately 5000 Steempower one account a week I don't think that this solution will work.
If a whale has 500.000 Steempower he can just claim approximately 100 new accounts at once and than post in every account only one post every week.
So in this case he could always get full rewards for selfvoting.
He wouldn't be able to handle all these accounts in a way that every of them could create more or less reasonable comments/posts. However, pure automated comments, created for farming puposes only, could easily be detected and flagged by members of an implemented anti abuse committee, which I suggested, as well.
OK I wrote about 100 acconts.
You are right this is really hard to handle.
But if you allow one vote in full strengh every day it would be also ok to use only 10 accounts.
Every day one post in every of the 10 accounts and the other 9 vote this post.
I think it's not much difference in time to post 10 times a day in one account or to post in 10 accounts only once a day, isn't it ?
It's rather easy to spot (even by automated algorithms) if these ten accounts were only interested in upvoting each other instead of upvoting other users as well ...
For example also Voting CSI in SteemWorld would be very low.
haha, so I am the worsest guy at all cause my Voting CSI is negativ (-0,6)
Indeed, just another evidence of how well these kinds of algorithms are working. ;-)
Yes with 100% selfvoting you have 0.0 (like your friend hae...) so I am worse cause I have 0.0% selfvoting and - 1,1.
OK so your opinion is that selfvoting is better than votings others.
My guess is that the algorithm doesn't differenciate between 'self-voting' and upvoting 'other' accounts. It matters how often and strong certain accounts are getting upvoted (and also how many different accounts are receiving upvotes).
The algorithm cannot know anyway if the upvoted accounts belong to the same user or not.
I didn't write the algorithm of Voting CSI, so I can only guess how it works. It could well be that it also checks how often these upvoted accounts upvote each other (if they are building a closed group which is mutually upvoting each other) and how diverse the upvotes are which they receive from other users (in this aspect @haejin beats you).
All in all it does a great job to detect selfish voting behaviour. YOU and @haejin fully deserve the low rating. :)
Haha - I even get worse than I was before, now -1,1 :-)
Such I bad boy I am.
Completely useless. Alts can be used to circumvent that and frequently are by abusers.
Nothing wrong with plain old PoB. But it takes an active anti-abuse community to do curb abuse. Not even Steemit, Inc with its mightly voting power can curb anything if there is no anti-abuse community to constantly bring abuse to its attention.
I'm on Hive but I want Steem to succeed also. In fact, forks are good in the world of DPoS because that's how things decentralise . Each project takes a different direction and attracts different people.
NOT completely useless!
I am pretty sure that most current abusers wouldn't take the effort to create that many alt accounts which are necessary to cirumvent this hurdle.
In addition it would be very easy to spot these accounts it they weren't active themselves and only received upvotes from one single abuser account (or circle upvote each other).
Concerning the committee, that's my idea since a long time.
It would only take creating one alt to double the number of daily posts one can make from ten to twenty.
That can easily be circumvented, too. Add a bit of randomization in the process and the detection becomes much harder. Add a few legit posts in the mix to attract votes from others.
Nothing wrong with a committee.
I also suggested to reduce the number of fully rewarded posts per day. In the early STEEM days this number was actually four per day.
The combination of these two suggestions would be rather effective in my opinion.
I disagree. That's all rather effortful and most abusers wouldn't do that. In the past it was very easy to spot the majority of abusers just by checking their 'Voting CSI' in SteemWorld.
For the remaining rest the 'committee' could be responsible.
Sure it can be tried. Time will tell if it works.
Another interesting related idea is a tax on too many rshares spent on the same accounts within a time period. That would force users to either create a lot of alts, which would cost them money in the form of account creation, or actually motivate them to look for more users to curate, which would be an excellent thing for user retention.
Sorry Jaki01, but steemcurator01 aka steemit inc is still abusing people on steem and posting here keeps it near the top. As a developer, I must say it is fun watching steemit committing suicide trying to destroy speech it doesn't like. Their myopic focus as a heavily censored Reddit clone will destroy the chain's true potential.
It is long overdue to move over to hive; Steemit inc and justin Sun don't know what the hell they are doing here. All their real talent left, and notice that all they care about is restricting speech to appease the CCP.
The should have never stolen the restricted stake, they should have never install ransomware on the major exchanges embezzling users Steem to takeover the chain, they never should have used the stolen restricted Steem to kick out the people who knew what they were doing. And you can't say that the old witnesses were in the wrong for many reasons. Most notably, when after Justin Sun condemned it demanding his stolen loot be protected, He did the same exact thing to legitimate Steem users to stop the Steem price from freefalling to 0 and prevent them from investing early in hive with their legitimate private property. Subsequently this led to the theft of a huge amount of Steem, and Justin Sun is silent about funds being super safu. Oh, he isn't just staying silent. That statement that Steem funds were super safu was a criminal act of fraud. The CCP conman, and his agents at steemit inc, needs to be prosecuted and where the statutes permit it-executed.
The biggest abuser on steem is Steemit inc.
... and if someone dares to disagree with certain whales on HIVE, that's an example what may happen (together with the kind wish to "catch the virus"):
Furthermore, on HIVE whales (most of them early miners), 'top witnesses', (former) bid bot owners and 'VIPs' determine how the trending page looks like (full of crypto, blockchain and HIVE related stuff which isn't of interest for people outside of a very small microcosm).
Concerning the equivalent of the 'steemit stake' it seems the influencers mentioned above are just finding ways to satisfy their greed and benefit from it ("I want to get my part of it because I did sooo much for HIVE").
HIVE is centralised in a sense of being an oligarchy where very few persons determine the future direction, for example who gets the huge upvotes and whose proposals are supported (for sure not the ones of new, unknown developers).
Is HIVE worse than STEEM? I didn't say so. Do I wish HIVE to fail? Of course not!
So what do I want? For example:
I suggest you to try to improve HIVE (there is a lot to be improved!) instead to interfere with STEEM (especially as your critics isn't constructive at all).
My reason to use HIVE or STEEM aren't any 'top witnesses' or whales (they may lead their individual wars, argue in their private slacks and circle vote their friends, but in the end it's none of my business as they also don't care about me as well). I am here because of small and middle sized users which are my friends and which I like to support! And I see no single reason not to support users on STEEM as well. Right, many things here can be criticized, but I also observed some encouraging aspects: for example there are many very engaged users who are taking over responsibility, dare to express their opinions, whereas until recently always the same people (again and again) appeared in trendig and dominated the public discussions.
If you want to convince people to use HIVE the best way is to improve ... HIVE, to show the world how good it is ... but not to attack users who have their own valid reasons to stick with STEEM.
Den Kommentar muss ich mir bookmarken - danke @jaki01
I wasn't attacking you, you are on my friendslist from over the years I believe. I was going after the illicit user steemcurator01 and steemit inc in general. Top keep steem curator from hiding posts to the bottom due to downvoting, the mechanism of responding to the top most appearing comment ensures that steemcurator01 is impotent at tossing the dissent/critics to the bottom. There is more overt censorship going on, including fully hiding users and their post at the condenser api level. Eventually they will do that to all of us.
Justine had a talk with Bernie about a year ago, he supposedly stopped downvoting literally just about anyone. He was behind a lot of pojects at steem, knew there was a lot of potential behind steem, but knew how idiotic the leadership was and the risk of the ninja mined stake. In his own way, He likely was protecting new users and their investments from the incompetent management of Powell and Scott. That is, not to invest in the sinking ship. They have since played the ninja mined card, and you have the same set of retards at the top....and Ned Scott is back.
I rarely use the trending page, I mostly use friend's feed. Steem's front page is really bad though. I think i know a potential solution but the implementation may have to be tailored beyond a proof of concept phase, but not going to help steemit. I'll see who I can try to talk to in hive about it.
I've never observed the, "I want to get my part of it because I did sooo much for HIVE" attitude you speak of.
As far as hive being oligarchical, it isn't a dictatorship that is scaring away anyone who is interested in investing and having a say in governance. Before the justin sun Takeover, only a few people took time to vote. If anything the those hive whales have lesser say now than all the minnows who schooled together to hold off the invasive predator. Witnesses have changed naturally over the years, so replacing witnesses wasn't unheard of. Due to justin Sun causing the minnows to school together, it is now, I would imagine, 4x more difficult for a new hive witness to enter the top 20 in terms of votes and are the witnesses that the community-not the mad dictator-wants.
The old witnesses brought years of knowledge to the chain, and knew the limits inside and out, and potential outside of blogging. Steemit inc just has the same ole retards running it, the true talent left, and they are destroying it internally, while trying to keep it limited to a steemit/blogging box. When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, don't interfere. So it really is comical to watch the old leadership commit seppuku in terms of western markets. Really the only market that is going to be left for steemit will be the the CCP.
Downvotes aren't erasing an entire account's blog from hivemind, genius.
Y'all Steem-humping necrophiles should learn what a false-equivalence fallacy is so you can figure out how dumb you look when you try it.
Angry? That's what I mean: it's so hard for many people to discuss in a friendly, unemotional way.
For a better discussion: what about to quote the passage to which you are referring?
Which "equivalence" did I talk about, please?
But my question stands: do you really think, attacking people here (with flags/insults), spamming or farming will cause anybody to join HIVE?
The part where you think getting downvoted is equivalent to getting all of your posts censored, your account essentially erased, from front ends courtesy of some censor-happy monkeys pulling the strings of the corpse of Stinc. I thought these guys had a lot of posts? @themarkymark @ausbitbank @gtg Where did they all go?
You mean that part where you think I would think ...? :)
That's why I asked you to quote me!
Then without quote: I think for the average user (who doesn't care at all about wars between millionaires which he doesn't know) the probability is much higher to get flagged permanently by any angry whale than to get his accout blocked or deleted on STEEM.
In his eyes that's nothing else than censorship. It won't help if you explain him "Look, that's no censorship, people can still find your content in a block explorer." That may be right, but he just won't care. He gets no more rewards and cannot see his posts in his preferred interface anymore.
If you want to convince him to join HIVE, to show him that his stay there is more user friendly and rewarding is the better method than flagging or insulting him here on STEEM. Correct? Correct!