The ability to speak freely, not earn freely
Out of the woods? Maybe not quite yet, but it is nice to see that the Steem feed price has moved up from the adjusted 20 cents to 21 cents due to the price movement. Only another 40x to go to hit an All Time high!
Again, my small Steem sell was just a touch too high above the spike before the pullback. I even mentally set it first, and then lowered it slightly to try and trick it into being "on point", but no. I think someone is watching my trades...
Cryptonoia: the belief of crypto traders that their buy and sell points are being observed and avoided just to fuck with them.
I got a comment today with a hypothetical regarding downvoting (something they don't seem to like) that asked something like, Would I be okay if the Chinese Censorship Brigade bought a lot of Steem, increased their REP to 82 and then obliterated my account until it was -11 and hidden away.
Firstly, the number mentioned was 2 million Steem, but that wouldn't be enough to increase their Reputation significantly fast enough and that would be noticed. They would be better off buying a high rep account instead. I am sure Kingscrown would sell his and move onto one of his many alts. Secondly, that amount while significant, would still take an eternity to lower my rep to the auto grey point.
But anyway, let's say they buy 20 million instead.
Yeah, I would be okay with that. Firstly, it would create a nice bump in price and decrease liquid supply by 20%. I would even keep posting and make sure that they used as much VP as I could force them into using just for the fun of it. I would be very interested to see how the community would react and if the tools of decentralization are robust enough to counter.
But more than that, I would like to see how price would cope and if SMTs came into play in the way that they could and provide an uncageable decentralized animal. The thing is, that if an account was able to affect the decentralization so heavily, Steem loses its value. But to do so, that "Chinese account" would have to be able to corrupt all consensus witnesses. The moment that happens, the blockchain gets copied and a new blockchain with new witnesses springs into life, or the old ones that were forced out of Steem.
But, this and a million other things aside....
This isn't censorship!!!
The blockchain would keep recording my posts and comments as long as I have the possibility to post and comment. To censor me from Steem they would have to stop me from posting and commenting, which would mean forking me out in a centralized manner, and the project is dead anyway.
Steem is censorship resistant and as I said in replies, there are many front ends that do not even grey downvoted to oblivion posts and, anyone can make another. People seem to commonly call downvoting censorship when what they actually are doing is piggybacking another aspect of the blockchain onto their "claim". Earnings.
While anyone can essentially say whatever they want on the Steem blockchain, meaning they have freedom of speech - Freedom of Speech doesn't come with the addition of freedom to earn on what is said. Pull your head out of your arses, if you think that your freedom to speak also includes your earnings.
If for example, you choose not to speak what you want because it will cost you votes or your stupid reputation, that is on you and perhaps you should reflect on how strong and how much you believe your own convictions. If your freedom is affected by your need to earn - you are not free.
Then there is the other thing. What the fuck do I say that is so important that censorship even matters to me? I do not believe that anything I say here is so important that it truly matters if I got censored or not - how full of themselves are people these days - Perhaps there are lots of people who think they are Jesus reincarnated or something.
Don't get me wrong here, people can and are being censored on the centralized platforms like Twitter and YouTube, because they do not for whatever reason forward the agenda of the platform. People need to remember something. Ready???
All of these platforms are opt-in and your account is not owned by you. Ever.
You are choosing to agree to their terms and conditions and, they can kick you the fuck out of their house while under their digital roof whenever the fuck they want to. You are censored on their platform - not in your walking life.
And then there is Steem
Steem is an opt-in platform too and on Steem I own my account, which means it is very difficult for anyone to take away my ability to speak here, even if many could take away my ability to earn here. Censorship resistance is not overly important to me personally, but I love that this is available to anyone who opts themselves into Steem, which is why I keep opting myself in. Once here, people's words are protected by dozens of witnesses spread around the world, and tens of thousands of accounts that have stake in the future of the platform.
Essentially, if one is worried about being censored,
Steem is currently the only place to be online.
I would rather have my account obliterated here through a highly convoluted, complicated and very expensive process than -
have it deleted at the click of a button anywhere else.
But, that is just me.
and this is Steem
So, you can speak for yourself.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
Posted via Steemleo
Good points. I wrote a post the other day about a guy that was downvoting me. It wasn't until I finished my post that I realized I don't really care as much as I thought I did (about getting downvoted). The result of the downvotes have very little impact on my account and if they are spending their VP focusing on me, then that is other legitimate people that they are leaving alone. I figure it is a win win for everyone :)
Yah, it isn't the end of the world and even though it is annoying to get especially if frequently and large, at the end of the day they will move on. I make sure that it will at least cost them if they want to downvote my every post, so I will post at least 3 times a day when they do, as they only have 2.5 free ;D
Haha, that is an awesome idea. I hadn't thought about that.
It means that in order to suppress me, they are less likely to suppress others simultaneously. What they remove from me goes back into the pool for reallocation.
While it is annoying because I work very hard on my content and for Steem - it isn't going to kill me, nor is it going to stop me from doing what I do.
!ENGAGE 30
@bozz you have received
30 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
It's so weird to trade 1 SBD for 5 Steem now that SBD is being printed again. IMO anything less than 40 cents a coin is a steal.
It's also funny how people talk about reputation in the context of censorship. Do these people not realize that reputation is a centralized metric invented by Steemit Inc themselves? It has nothing to do with the Steem blockchain. So much to learn here, I'm guessing most users are clueless, and that ignorance will only get more pronounced as we enter a bull market and all the shitposters come out of the woodwork.
Steem is a steal with SD printing :D
I remember at the highs getting 1:7 but was very happy with 1:5 - one day people will miss these days because they missed these days.
Regardless of my reputation on Steem, my social reputation is intact, not that it matters much either. I think one of the gamifications of the internet is to encourage people to identify and box themselves into imaginary, ego-driven labels.
!ENGAGE 30
@edicted you have received
30 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
Yeah I learned first hand how useless as a metric Reputation was when I concocted a flagging system apart from curation that couldn't be gamed easily that revolved around tier accessible tools at certain reputation levels.
Steem is decentralize and censorship free downvotes are good to stop spamming butt as compare to other centerlized social media platforms steemit is best
For example on YouTube if your channel is disabled by YouTube team you can't even open your YouTube channel
But on steemit if someone downvoted or flagged you post you can still open your account and also you can do post and comment visibility or earning may decrease but it's also recovered when you get upvotes again
There are many benefits to steem, if only there were more users who understood them :)
As time passed more and more users understand it
I think people take the greyed out comments and post issue to serious. There was an individual that had all of his comments greyed out. It did not stop me from being curious as to what they said and looking at the comments. It was just a simple click to see the comment, most of the comments were relative to the post, I asked why, I was told, I gave my opinion, and the person's comments are no longer greyed out, I am pretty sure I did not persuade anyone to change their mind, but I spoke up. Even if they did not stop the auto down voting of this person I still would have seen each and every comment of his if I saw his name I would just ungrey it for myself.
On the other hand there are comments that are greyed out that I will not bother to look at, these are from disgruntled woe is me types, or spammer accounts. So the auto down votes do not bother me, people can still look and still see the comment. It is just a click away after all. I do still look on occasion to see if they have changed their ways and if they did then I will look at their comments and post also.
If a person is concerned that someone they follow is being censored all they have to do is look at the post. They can resteem it so others that follow them can see the post. They can make a post and then put a link to the greyed out post. There are ways and means to remove perceived censorship on the Steem Block Chain.
If they do not like the fact that a tribe or a community has blocked/muted a friend then they can always still use the steemit front end. Unfortunately if they did that they would have no reason to play the woe is me I am a victim card and try bullying others to get their way.
It is funny when it comes to some of the people who I have heard complain. There was one who said that using another frontend than Steemit is not viable, because they don't like the layouts of the others and they are used to Steemit. First-world problems.
I think the tribes are a pretty good mechanism to avoid censorship and, it is possible to create an identical Steemit frontend if one chooses, I even think it is opensource for the most part.
!ENGAGE 30
@bashadow you have received
30 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
Yeah a lot of people are so simple they don't recognize how easily most anything can backfire. There's a name for that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Look, my only concern is avoiding downvotes.
Nobody told me I shouldn't pay for bid-bots (isn't this a free-market).
Nobody told me I shouldn't self-vote (wtf).
Nobody told me I shouldn't copy stuff I posted on other blogs.
Nobody told me the whales can't be criticized.
I'm just trying to figure out "what the rules are".
There is no way, method, or manner to avoid down votes other to never post or comment. The Steemit FAQ on down votes: "Users are allowed to downvote for any reason that they want." So it is impossible to avoid down votes.
Bid Bot's Buying/selling Votes"Selling or offering to buy votes/resteems/follows, or schemes that facilitate this." is considered abuse.
The FAQ does have a lot of information in it. People just don't like to read it because then they do not have the sympathy card of I didn't know. There are a lot of things that people are never told, it does not take long to see the results of ones actions. If an individual does not like the consequence of what happened to them because of their own action, they can either ask the individual what they did wrong, ignore the issue and continue on with their ways, or change their ways, and the issue may go away.
The rules on steem block chain are like the rules in life, the laws are always changing based on what the leaders want or what the leaders perceive society wants, or what they feel would move society in one direction or another.
During WW2 in America there were rationing laws, and internment laws, and removal of freedoms for some groups of people, those laws at the time made sense to those in charge, and to most people because they did not vote those individuals out of office.
HF20/21 the EIP was talked about discussed, and voted on by the individuals that the users of the steem block chain voted in as witnesses, the majority of the stake agreed with the assessment because the majority of the same witnesses are still in the top 20.
As for "Nobody told me the whales can't be criticized." they can and often are. If it is criticism then they may look at it, if it is name calling and ranting and raving about their lack of brains or other such nonsense then retaliation is going to happen. To many people think statements such "You're an asshole" are criticism, it's not it's an opinion. Most so called criticism is nothing more than opinion.
A short search on the word criticism: "the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something. : a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone or something."
Name calling is not criticism, attacking a person character is not criticism. To many of the people that say they were just criticizing a whale or an individual we instead attacking the individuals character
So, basically you're saying, "there are no rules".
I'm not, the FAQ pretty much says no rules when it comes to down votes. Society and the leaders of society change the rules when the rules need changing. The witness on steem can effect what rules get put in place.
There are rules, there are a lot of rules. People just like to think there are none, to think life is total anarchy with no collective direction of travel. There is a very wide spread diversification of rules in the world, and in our daily lives, and not all of them are written down.
The HF's are the rule changers on Steem Block Chain. People can either accept them try to change them in the next HF, or ignore them and live with the consequences.
I do not like the down vote issue. It has always been broken since I have been on steem block chain. I have put my thoughts and ideas out there as to how I think it could be fixed. I really do not like the blind down vote Army that makes no post, leaves no comments, and does nothing but down vote. I have urged the removal of the delegated steem and I have made suggestions on an auto comment in the down voters name and account so that the community can decide if the down vote was justified.
if people see something they do not like make a post, or leave comments/ideas on fixing it on those post that ask for opinions on the direction of steem block chain. Go on discord or in the steem chat rooms and leave messages. (I try to no longer use the chat or discord). There are ways and means to get ideas out there to effect change, will those ideas get adopted at some point in time, will the right people see the idea at the right time, no one knows. I do know, I do know, if the idea of fixing something is not put out there then there is no chance in hell of that non-published idea being adopted.
Well, as long as rampant downvoting feeds the "reward pool" and the "reward pool" feeds the top-earners and witnesses, the powers-that-be will continue to encourage (ignore) abusive downvoting.
nOW, how do we onboard new users..?
Oh, yes, tell the newbz some evil people are posting nasty stuff on steemit and they need to open an account so they can DOWNVOTE them!!!
100 million new steemians practically overnight!
I agree.
I haven't found one yet that shows posts from accounts with negative rep.
steempeak and busy.org show individual posts that are downvoted below zero pending payouts, but still hide posts from accounts with negative rep.
Well, not exactly "anyone". Do you happen to know of a good tutorial?
Censorship is the suppression [NOT NECESSARILY THE ERASURE]of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." WIKI
Look, nobody, and I mean nobody's earning lambo money on steemit.
Upvote rewards are negligible to non-existent for most people, and you can make way more "profit" by simply band-wagon-voting the top earners.
It was suggested to me by steemcleaners that declining rewards would mitigate downvotes.
I shared this suggestion with a few accounts that were getting heavily downvoted (for differences of opinion and not for "specific violations of community standards") and they reported that the downvoting continued without interruption and their rep was getting slaughtered.
So, no, it's not just greedy twits who are hungry for fractions of pennies.
Declining payouts does NOTHING to slow down the abusive downvotes.
Let me ask you,
Does it make sense to you to set a minimum payout above 0.001 steem?
Why?
Why steal scraps of dust from all the hopeful newbz and shovel that dust into the mouths of the top-earners (with pending payouts above the 20 steem reward curve sweet-spot)?
How does this seem "fair" to anyone?
What's the moral-theory?
I think there are several out there, but with a little gumption or the will to pay someone a few shekels with some tech skills, it isn't too hard. I wold likely say that with a post or two, you could find out what you need to know and I think Steem-Engine can hook people up for a small fee.
I find it interesting on Steem that people talk about censorship/ suppression of free speech due to the money. Steem is an opt-in platform and is not a job. It really is up to the individual if they believe they are suppressed or not, not the platform itself - and while one feels suppressed, another can feel empowered by the same circumstances. So, who is suppressing who?
Not at the moment, but some were and, some might again. This is why so many try to find ways to cut corners and earn more by means that can be harmful to the platform, if not other users.
Not if you have some skill and personality and are willing to build up an account over time. It takes effort though, and there are no guarantees.
Weird, I would say milk the downvotes of as much value as possible. Declining rewards is a silly move imo and just means that the downvoter if abusive has more value to downvote others. Then again, I don't care much if my comments get downvoted.
Yes. Because the system has costs of transactions and having that minimum keeps the costs of transactions much lower as it removes a lot of the payouts. On top of this, there are people who have successfully in the past milked curation returns for tens of thousands of dollars by using 8-10,000 accounts stacking on top of each other with 15 sP delegated to them and millions of little votes.
People forget that this is not a charity in any way, though some charity does take place here. it is a Feemium model and people can choose to buy in also, and some do. The problem is in many ways that ~everyone~ expects to earn from the same pool of resources, but they don't want to have to compete heavily for it. In my opinion and experience, it is possible to earn significant amounts of Steem from the pool, but it takes more time and investment, on top of skill and personality than most are willing or able to give. So for many who can, I would suggest taking some Steem off the exchanges with a little fiat to secure some digital real estate for the future, then enjoy participating her regardless of payout. Most won't do that at any price though.
This is 100% incorrect.
Wipe out my fractional steem-pennies all day long if you'd like.
It's the rep obliteration and the auto-hiding that is the primary concern here.
If you're all fired up about the magical-reward-pool, then declining rewards should make people immune to downvotes.
The reputation system is a made up metric - like @edicted pointed out.
Not at all. because you seem to value your reputation. I don't know what drives all people to downvote, but it is more than just the reward pool. You are the one fired up. In my opinion, reputation is a meaningless metric that became even more meaningless with bidbots. And, for me, always has been meaningless as an indicator of personality, skill or any other valid metric.
Once you care about your reputation, you are enslaved to the opinions of others.
Are you kidding me?
All I'm talking about is an above (0) rep.
The entire issue, the entire time is about hidden posts and comments.
Not about the rewards-pool.
Not about some prestigious (79) rep.
The entire issue, the entire time is about hidden posts and comments.
If you know of an alternative interface, like steampeak or busy.org that doesn't hide posts and comments from users below (0) rep, I'll stop talking about it forever.
Do you have an aversion to clicking "show comment/post"? I often have conversations and comment on greyed out posts and comments.
Did you ask over at Steem-engine about developing interfaces? I think they have a discord. You can own and configure one however you want. It is possible to only show greyed out posts if you would like, I am sure.
I asked marky and steemchiller and they both said it would be prohibitively expensive and hosting would be problematic.
So, you want other people to make one for you at their expense, for your requirements?
Remember that all the interfaces are owned by someone, they are not public property.
By the way, I think it would be interesting to have an interface that only showed all the heavily downvoted and greyed out content. I am not sure how many people would want to spend their time there though.
Marky and steemchiller also strongly suggested "nobody would be interested".
This is the best I could come up with, https://steemitboard.com/ranking/?p=54566&s=reputation
Have you had a look at those accounts? And their histories?
I've skimmed a couple, @bewarecenterbase seems to be mostly complaining about unfair downvotes and a general lack of coherent standards and appeals process.
Broken link to illustrate,
https://steemit.com/steem/@bewarecenterbase/6ctepz-steem-freedom-downvote-downvoting-manslaughterers-v-8-0-1-strategy-news-and-list
@superheroes seems to be "guilty" of low-effort posting (which I do all the time) and receiving boatloads of zombie-sock-puppet upvotes (would you be downvoted to (-14) rep if those sock-puppets were voting for you?
I haven't run into anything "atrocious" yet.
The funny thing is that if the vigilantes downvoted everyone to (-1) and kept them there, it would reduce the "Streisand effect".
If you didn't care about the "opinions of others", you'd never type a single word.
That is not what I said. reread it.
You didn't write this?
https://steemit.com/hive-167922/@tarazkp/q5n6ws
If you don't care about your reputation, you will necessarily IGNORE EVERYONE.
If you IGNORE EVERYONE, you will post NOTHING.
The quoted statement appears to be incoherent and self-contradictory. Please explain.
I don't care about my reputation, especially my imaginary Steem reputation.
Caring about the opinions of others is unrelated, and even those I don't care much about.
What kind of nonsense is this?
I can care about people without caring about my reputation. You seem to be losing coherency.
And again, this makes no sense. reputation has absolutely nothing to do with this at all.
I have to ask out of curiosity, what is with the micro delegations to so many people?
It's more effective than voting and or following.
how so?
Suppression of Rewards, not of speech.
Why hide posts then?
Numerous Reasons, among them to Curate things as Unworthy of being Exposed to Everyone, exactly like poorly curated comments are hidden on YouTube. Curating something as hidden by default is there to act as a caution that the content is considered by some to not be worthy of being seen by default. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Steemit choses to fo with the blockchain data or how it wants to present it, in the same way that it doesn't matter what anybody does with the data or how they want to present it.
The ability to speak freely, not earn freely
Also, does this mean you believe that if you don't like a shop owner (who isn't doing anything illegal) or you don't like the patrons of that shop, that you should be able to take money from their till and redistribute it to other shops?
Ah, you have made a common error here with the way Steem works. The Steem is not in the till for 7 days.
Downvotes do not take Steem that is owned, they redirect Steem that has been earmarked. Up until payout time when the Steem moves into an actual wallet, that Steem is still in the pool and is open to negotiation. For seven days the Steem is in the stake-directed market flow and not until it is in an account wallet does it become owned. Once owned, it is owned and it is up to the owner what they do with it.
No one is taking money from a shopkeepers till.
The money isn't "in the bank" until the end of the day when the deposit is made.
The tip-jar isn't emptied into the bartender's or street-musician's pocket until the end of the night.
If I leave someone an upvote, that's essentially a tip for that specific post and that specific account.
I'm fully intending to contribute to and encourage their efforts.
And if someone who disagrees with that post or doesn't like that account downvotes that same post with enough steem-power, they REDIRECT MY VOTE (tip) to "the reward pool", where it gets distributed to the TOP EARNERS.
My vote is canceled.
Please explain what you would consider a real-world equivalent to this "give to the commons" moral theory of yours.
Perhaps a charity box at a church that gets redistributed to the poor?
Would it be like having a hundred charity boxes, each with someone's name on it?
And then if one box got "too many" contributions, the church leaders would "redistribute" those donations to the TOP EARNERS?
How does this make sense to anyone?
The till is owned, as is the tip jar, they are not public property.
Again, I will explain. Your tip isn't immediately from the pool to the post, it is earmarked for seven days and no, it isn't for a specific amount at all. Your vote percentage might be static, the vote value is not and will be affected by other things like how much the amount is on that post now. For example, if your vote is 10 cents on a post with no other votes, it is 10 cents (affected by all other votes of course in the system having an effect on the pool). However, if a large voter comes in and adds a vote on top, your vote might be worth 20 cents. You can test this by for example, voting on a zero voted post, and then voting on one in trending.
For whatever reason, you seem to be quite emotional about the mechanics here. However, consider if YouTube allowed all uploaders to decide how much of the money they pay to content contributors they get. Do you think it would accurately represent value if left unchallenged?
The patrons regularly dip into it to make change.
It's the closest real-world analog we have to "payment pending".
Thanks for the dime-store-psychoanalysis.
I know how the votes work.
My only point is that my vote can be canceled by someone else.
I know my vote-value is based on my steem-power. I know it fluctuates.
But if I upvote someone, it is an attempt to encourage them with some token of support.
(IFF) money is speech (citizens united) (THEN) downvoting is suppression of speech.
I don't have any problems with downvoting for CRIMES!!!
I just want to figure out what constitutes a CRIME so we can move forward with a coherent standard.
People are fleeing fa.cebook and yo.tube because of capricious censorship.
If we want to attract new steemians, we need to be able to clearly define what constitutes a CRIME and who the newbz can appeal to if they believe they've been treated unfairly.
What?
ISN'T THAT WHAT PA.TREON IS FOR?
should pa.treon offer a feature where you can pay to cancel other people's subscriptions to accounts you DOnT LIke?
I don't like this yo.utuber, I'll open a pa.treon(-) account and cancel the subscriptions of all their supporters. Because I disagree with them.
I'm sure pa.treon(-) would make tons of money!
The patreon account doesn't choose what they get paid, the subscriber does.
The pa.treon account sets the bar for subscriptions and offers incentives $1 a month, $10 a month, $100 a month. So they sort of set their own price.
Now imagine if pa.treon allowed people to sign up NEGATIVE subscriptions.
That would be the equivalent of a downvote on pa.treon.
Do you believe NEGATIVE subscriptions would IMPROVE the pa.treon platform?
do you think it would attract more users or do you think it would drive users AWAY?
You are mistaken in your comparison. the subscription on patreon is a deal made directly between provider and consumer. Steem is not that, as a vote comes out of a shared pool of resources.
If it makes it easier to understand, see the Steem pool as a shared wallet between a group of people where any purchase made has an opportunity cost and affects all others in the group and their ability to purchase. If there is a 100 dollars in the wallet and someone wants to buy something for themselves with it, all others will have to go without. The downvote is a challenge of the purchase or perhaps, "the right to return" what was bought for some money back.
Not "directly", there's a corporate middleman that has veto-power over the deal.
Also, it's purely voluntary, just like an upvote.
Yes. Just like bitcoin mining. However, your "daily allowance" is basically a micro-interest-payment PROPORTIONAL to your steem-power (GHz).
So, if you don't spend it, it goes into the magical rewards pool.
And if you DO spend it, it incentives you to invest in more steem-power.
Eh, not exactly. Your share of the daily interest payout is always proportional to your steem-power.
There is absolutely no way for one person to "suck up all the daily interest upvotes for themselves" and "leave everyone else with nothing".
That's impossible.
If fewer people vote, their votes are worth slightly more, if more people vote their votes are worth slightly less.
But your vote is always proportional to your steem-power. Wanna control a bigger vote? Power-up more steem.
Can you show me some data on that?
I think Socky had some charts, and the rewards-pool increase caused by downvoting is miniscule. Especially when you consider individual benefit.
You might be getting 0.3 steem more per week than you would otherwise if there were no downvotes at all.
Most of the magical-rewards-pool is generated by the "below minimum payment" scam.
I think you still don't get it.
Downvoting doesn't actually return it to the pool, it just removes the portion that is going to a particular place and that is important. At one point, haejin was taking 6% of the entire pool, which is massive. Bidbits had 40% of the staked power and distributed to less than 2% of active users on what was mostly shite.So yeah, the negotiation through downvotes are important.
Down votes don't make the rich richer, they give the power to reallocate to those who could be more deserving, by removing from those who aren't. What is deserving or not is up to the staked users who can use their stake to negotiate for 7 days what that might be.
I feel like we are going around in circles.
At one point, haejin was controling 6% of the steem-power. Isn't that their right?
Doesn't their purchase of steem indirectly benefit everyone holding steem?
no, he wasn't. 6% of the stake would be 12 million.
And, his stake wasn't earned, it was paid for (I suspect) and then used to drain the pool 10x a day. No one downvoted at the time because it was deemed too expensive, and the bidbots had a lot to lose if the did.
Isn't all stake "paid for"?
How were they draining 6% of the pool without a 6% stake?
With their upvotes? or by some other mechanism?
people were front running for curation rewards.
Can't they still do this?
Why not just flatten the rewards (remove the timing bonus from upvotes)?
Or better yet, incentivize voting for the newbz?
To encourage large voters to vote at 0 minutes on themselves like they were?
To feed alt accounts, like some people do?
How would removing all timing bonuses "encourage" anyone to vote at 0 minutes?
which timing do you mean? the 5 minutes? or the order at which votes come in?
If you mean the 5 minutes, large voters will just vote at zero as there is no penalty.
If you mean having static rewards based on stake, the large voters will likely earn more than they do now as currently they lose some to the frontrunners.
I'm suggesting that curation rewards not be tied to timing or order.
That way, you'd stop incentivizing band-wagon-voting.
Simply amping-up the top earners doesn't give people a lot of faith in the "fairness" of the system.
If I wrote 3 fantastic posts every day, the best the blockchain has - would you be happy with each of them getting 2000 dollars? There would be no reason at all for anyone not to vote on me, would there? I'd deserve it too, as since it is the best on chain - it would be fair. Winner take all?
And, I actually think that it would bring more attention to Steem than spreading to the small accounts as it would make the news and everyone would want a piece of it. I'd be a whale in no time earning ~18000 Steem a day.
The best strategy currently for maxmiizing voting return is to spread it out, especially if you are a large account. Without the game in the system, it may as well be just give 1 vote a day to plonk wherever one drops it, as the return is the same regardless.
I'm in favor of a completely free and fair marketplace of ideas.
You earn whatever you can and I'm not going to take any of that away from you, unless you're violating some specific, quantifiable community standard that EVERYONE is held to equally (including the top ranked whales and witnesses).
The only "problem" seems to be when the game itself is configured to protect and boost the winners.
Yes, and this, I would argue, would be more fair than rewarding people for band-wagon-voting.
Band-wagon-votes are not intelligent critiques of content, they're just cynical money grabs.
YOu're the one who seemed to be suggesting that the top-dogs should "take a break" in order to let the small-fish have more of a chance.
Randomizing upvotes might not produce "headlines", but it would encourage Organic Growth.
You don't want to entice new steemians with visions of huge payouts, they'll only be disappointed and start bad-mouthing the platform (like @starworld).
What we want to try and do is give everyone a fair shot.
Perhaps there could be some criteria, like a Voight-Kampff test for the accounts to try and mitigate the sock-puppet "problem"?
Not a "captcha" or a "10 posts + 10 comments" or anything that crude.
Perhaps there's already some "good steemian citizen" list somewhere?
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps they can give fingerprints and government issued ID?
Yeah, no. Even those can be purchased in bulk and would not be a good metric for "real-live-person".
I'm thinking something more like a conversation.
I see a lot of accounts that never post, or only post and never respond to comments, or others who only downvote, or only upvote.
It seems like some high-ranking accounts could "tag" accounts as "probably-a-real-person" or "probably-not-a-real-person".
Kinda like steemitboard's achievements?
the achievements on steemitboard aren't sensitive enough. What is needed is a web of trust system, but that hasn't been developed yet. I have spoken before about the trusted people being able to tag accounts, but unfortunately, some of the high-ranking accounts like that dick Kingscrown are shady as fuck and have many "secret" alts themselves.
I do trust some people here though as I have met many of them and chatted with them off Steem also. I have people I have given money to when they have needed, people who my wife will contact if I die to help her with my account and hundreds of people from Steemfests that are known and, I have had people come to my house, gone to dinner with them, visited them on my work travels. The thing is though, many of the people who are doing relatively well have already proven themselves as humans to enough people that matter that they get voted. The reason noobs should engage is to build relationships, to become human - not just another faceless, nameless stranger - regardless of the content.
I agree.
Perhaps you could delegate 0.001 steem to all the accounts you personally vouch for?
And if we got this idea to catch on, we could track the "web of trust" without needing any additional code changes?
You trust them, they trust others, and so on. I would consider you a trust-worthy starting-point.
The problem is that it is too shaky that way. While I trust my judgements and potentially the judgement of those I can trust, soon it gets too loose. Ther are potentially ways to tokenize it however and maybe get NFT "trust tokens" that are tied to the person who first issues it for accountability. If someone is found out as gaming the system, all of their trust tokens are tracked and brought into question, and if no one else is willing to hand them one of their own, they become an untrusted node again, until someone vouches.
If you changed your mind about trusting someone, you could just undelegate, or send a friendly note to one of your buds, "hey, this account you trusted looks like they might be doing some shady stuff, if you don't remove them, I might have to untrust (undelegate) you".
I like your trust-token idea, but how would you implement it? Could you add AND remove people?
With NFTs you could potentially make a single one invalid. For example, person1 could have #455 token, I no longer trust that person, I mark it dead. it would require an interface and a fair amount of setup to do it properly. But I think that it could be used for example, people who have met IRL to begin with. Getting SteemFest people would be relativly easy, and then they are often meeting others at meetups. For example, I have met a lot of the Finnish users and could give each a token on their main accounts - alts still cause a problem if people decide to grant them.
This sounds promising.
There are people working on developing web of trust systems on and off Steem as it has a very large use case for the internet and can be leveraged for many things.
If it was built into the steem blockchain, that would be another great use-case for new members.
Bid-bots controlled 40% of steem-power and distributed it as they saw fit.
In exactly the same way that ANYONE can purchase banner ads on steemit, regardless of "quality".
And now the evil bid-bots just randomly upvote the top-earners, is that MORE than 2%?
Does any of this HELP the newb accounts?
No, distributed as a creator saw fit. The bidbots were indifferent, just went where they were called.
about 80% of the reward Steem goes to 20% of the active accounts. Pareto in play.
Yes, people with Staked Steem do. Do you? Stop voting my comments, draw back your delegations and go and vote on small accounts who you think deserve it.
Just like banner ads.
My below minimum upvotes already go straight into your precious magical rewards pool (so I'm not sure what you're complaining about), And I'm DELEGATING to small accounts because that's a much better show of support than this ridiculous "public-pool-tip-jar" notion.
That sounds promising, do you have any data?
Check one of @abh12345 recent posts or mine on the pareto principle from the other day, which uses his data.
https://steemit.com/distribution/@abh12345/an-attempt-to-show-improved-distribution-to-content-authors-over-the-past-year
Please explain how downvotes help the small fish raking in less than 20 steem pending payouts?
Please explain exactly how you distinguish "more deserving" from "top-earners"?
I don't really want to go into it again, but where votes go matters. Downvotes too.
You seem to focus on the larger accounts, take a look around. 20% of the active accounts on Steem take 80% of the Steem from the pool. But, those 20% aren't the largest accounts on Steem, but the largest accounts help support them. But, many of those accounts are growing and they are spreading out further - earning on and supporting niche content on tribes and in the platform. I have been here a long time, I have seen many people benefit from the goodwill of others, even at times where those others could have raped the system like some did.
You focus on whatever you think is important, it doesn't mean it is important to anyone else - or necessary.
My "focus" is on trying to keep the vigilantes from running off all the newbz.
The more people we can convince, "steem is a fair system", the more people will BUY IN.
This is exactly like cash-money-dollars.
If fewer people SPEND cash-money-dollars, then the cash-money-dollars that DO get spent are worth MORE (deflation, reduced liquidity).
If MORE people spend cash-money-dollars, then the cash-money-dollars that get spent are worth LESS (inflation, increased liquidity).
If you could stop people (through some mechanism, like downvoting) from purchasing dumb stuff, or stop them from tipping drivers and servers and hair-stylists, THEN your money would be worth slightly MORE than it currently is worth.
no you can't:
Read the Steem Whitepaper.
Damn! Even on reply, I can't beat Taraz! :)
;D
The money isn't "in the bank" until the end of the day when the deposit is made.
The tip-jar isn't emptied into the bartender's or street-musician's pocket until the end of the night.
If I leave someone an upvote, that's essentially a tip for that specific post and that specific account.
I'm fully intending to contribute to and encourage their efforts.
And if someone who disagrees with that post or doesn't like that account downvotes that same post with enough steem-power, they REDIRECT MY VOTE (tip) to "the reward pool", where it gets distributed to the TOP EARNERS.
My vote is canceled.
Please explain what you would consider a real-world equivalent to this "give to the commons" moral theory of yours.
Perhaps a charity box at a church that gets redistributed to the poor?
Would it be like having a hundred charity boxes, each with someone's name on it?
And then if one box got "too many" contributions, the church leaders would "redistribute" those donations to the TOP EARNERS?
How does this make sense to anyone?
I love it,
Stoopid Fooking Waste Of Air People, Stoopid Fooking Waste Of Air People Everywhere.
There is so much in this post, it’s hard to know where to begin. I am happy that the price is improving.
Thanks for tackling censorship issue it’s a very divisive one and an ongoing discussion of how even grey posts are visible if you wish yo see them. It appears that central tenet of earnings being yours in seven days are being debated, as all rules should be in a community and if there is enough interest voted upon.
The inflation pool works in a very precise manner, some people believe it works how they think it works :)
!ENGAGE 20
@shortsegments you have received
20 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
Have people always conflated weird things or is it a recent development?
Always I guess. I think now we live in a more conceptualized world with less connection to things we can hold, making it easier to get confused as one must be able to visualize for themselves. In the past, you could just hand them the thing and ask, "see?"
I, I, I. Me, me, me. Selfie culture, 15 minutes of fame. I did it, not us. I deserve it, not us. Everything I say, people listen and care to like or to upset themselves.
Oooooooo... crap. :D Been there, thought like that too.
No-one cares and I don't matter. A liberating thought I think.
It's not just you.
I agree. I think our egos get ahead of reality.
!ENGAGE 20
@insaneworks you have received
20 ENGAGEfrom @tarazkp!View and trade the tokens on Steem Engine.
Congratulations @tarazkp!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:
And I wouldn't want to be anywhere else but Steem for that exact reason !!
yep.