Oh well. This whole self-voting business could be completely abolished with just a few clicks and you would no longer need an executive. Or users who want to throw themselves into battle or see their purpose in fighting abuse. A decision by Steemit Inc and the witnesses. It may be that in the beginning self-voting was necessary due to the accumulation of enough VP, but that could have been changed a long time ago. Which one could find already quite questionable.
If the work of the witnesses and the willingness of Steemit Inc. is about functions that can be chosen by the users, all this could have been brought to the fore long ago.
I therefore consider this fight to be quite pointless, above all to spend my time and energy on harassing someone until he disappears from the scene.
It is important to know what design someone who founds a company or develops a product has in mind from the very beginning. The design, to vote for yourself at all, to integrate into this system, takes into account that abuse becomes part of the game from the birth of the platform.
As soon as the price rises, you have the same problem again. New ones would come and do the same: self-voting, set up multiple accounts and use bots to keep it running.
The second essential point is to provide the possibility of multiple accounts. With only one account, there are fewer ways to commit circular abuse. In "the rest of the Internet" multiple accounts meanwhile are abolished when a provider wants to offer a good reputation system, is what I perceive (could be a subjective perception, though). The crypto platform Pi, for example, says it explicitly:
The network has a strict rule of one account per person. Pi uses a multi-pronged strategy to ensure Pi is not mined by fake accounts. source
One just can't have everything. An egg-laying woolly pig, which also produces morally ethically correct participants. Where opportunities are given, they are used. This is a reality of life. If I don't want that, I don't offer such opportunities. It is that simple.
If self votes weren't allowed, the abusers would just use different accounts to post and upvote. It makes absolutely no sense to forbid them on the code side.
I think I've seen you proposing things like this several times now, and always someone explained to you why it is as it is and your suggestion doesn't work. Do you actually overthink your opinions when someone gives you an argument?
That's what I actually said in a different expression.
Why shouldn't I make suggestions? Do you think you speak for the entire usership here if you claim that my proposals don't work? And to what proposals do you actually refer?
Can't remember that we ever talked about this topic. I don't understand what arguments you're talking about.
It's also not possible to restrict people to only have one account. Trying it is pointless, even centralized platforms like Facebook fail trying.
It doesn't work because it's impossible, not because I say so. You can of course ignore reality and propose it, it's just pointless. And blaming Steemit and the witnesses to have it designed wrongly while it could easily be abolished is hilarious to anyone who understands that.
I hear this argument for the first time that multiple accounts are impossible to avoid. As long as I read something to the contrary somewhere else, you can't tell me different sources outside of Steemit that prove it, it's exactly your word I'm supposed to believe. Especially since, should that be true, the quote I used from Pi is therefore a false announcement by the operators of Pi?
Apart from that, my statement regarding the simple change referred to the self-voting function.
Then I ask you concretely: How high exactly would the effort be to abolish the self-vote function? What would have to be technically changed?
Questioning the design you perceive as blame?
Blame as in it's their decision that self-voting is possible, and if they wanted they could change it. They just can't.
For the self-voting function, we're running in circles there. That would only make sense if you could guarantee that abusers cannot have multiple accounts.
The quote from Pi is definitely a false announcement. You don't have to take my word for it, just think a bit how that should work.
Every possible option has flaws which render it useless. IP addresses aren't static. Device identifiers can be changed, cookies deleted, and most people have multiple devices anyway. Phone numbers are easy to obtain. ID documents don't prove you're the one sending it in.
Online banks use post ident, where your identity is verified in person by the mail man, or video ident, where a person checks that you're really the one with the document. Those are basically the only two more or less secure ways. And even there fraud is happening. Accounts can change owner once they're verified - with a bank account that'd mean trouble for the one who opened it. With a blockchain account - who cares?
Besides, it's not a good idea to store ID documents on a public blockchain ;)
There's the old meme "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". It means you can completely make up your identity. And you're not restricted to one. Trying to enforce it will only affect the technically ingenuous.
Yes, the mechanism between the verification of a person and an account is possible, although with some difficulties. I'm still skeptical about the initial design. From my perspective it must have been clear to the developers and programmers, because if I code the technical possibilities, I'll know what problems I'll encounter. Abuse in the digital world isn't new.
At Steemit, there are no particular hurdles to registering multiple accounts. I see a difference between "completely impossible to get 100% protection" and nevertheless efforts in strong protection to at least keep away the first abusive intentions. Of course, anyone who really puts criminal energy into it and wants to hack a system at all costs will, it seems, find ways to cross these borders. But I don't necessarily have to leave the window wide open. Please correct me, if I am wrong in this but I have the impression that it's quite easy to start many accounts here.
To fight the abusers and then one day it would be finished, I may even understand. But for how long does one want to fight and put up energy with all necessarry excecutive actions when the design can't be changed for more security?
This actually turns people down.
"Yes, the mechanism between the verification of a person and an account is possible, although with some difficulties."
I explained to you why it is not. You can keep assuring yourself that it is, but that doesn't change reality.
Also, steemit != steem. But I won't bother to try explaining the differences between backend and frontend to you now, as you proved that you don't care about explanations by ignoring basically everything I said in the last comment.
Enjoy wasting your time with thinking about "solutions" without understanding the basics of the technology. I'm out.