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.
It is not clear to me why you refer to your professional competence in this conversation, but then avoid concrete critical questions and do not name reasonable sources that support what you say.
My question to you was what exact technical processes are needed to deactivate the self-vote mechanism? You didn't answer that.
So the difference between absolute protection and relative protection doesn't mean anything to you? What additional security barriers exactly did Steemit set up over the last two years to prevent multiple accounts when setting up accounts? Not answered.
What else are you talking about? What "solutions"? You mean, my post on "the buttons"? Man, that is an experiment referring to debates I observed here. It's another form of a democratic voting method in systems. Why are you taking personal what I say?
When you debate about castles in the sky, no democratic process will ever help in building them.
I answered that it's not possible. You didn't like that answer, so you dismissed it. Any measures Steemit could implement are on the interface side. The ones they have (phone number, email, manual check) are set up because it costs them to create accounts. Anyone with a bit of steem can create as many accounts as they need in seconds. There is no technical way to prevent that.
There is no such thing as relative security in software development. Either a system is secure, or it isn't.
As a blockchain developer who has worked with this technology for more than 6 years, I am your reasonable source. If you dismiss this, I am wasting my time.
The systemic consensus experiment I am running isn't something built from sky castles. It is a reasonable and formal method for groups communicated by those, from whom I have the idea.
You already clearly stated that from your expertise it's not possible to prevent fake accounts. Now, please allow me to not believe everything you say here RIGHT AWAY. Because I hear mixed messages all over the Internet and this place.
Your stated working expertise is of course enough for you. It obviously is not enough for me, as we do not have a trusted relationship which is based on a longer-term and ongoing communication.
Since you so consequently repeat that safety in terms of fake accounts is impossible, this is a point of reference for me. Which makes serious business - what people seemingly see and want from this platform - even more difficult.
How I know business so far those with influence on central decisions (Steemit Inc.) could pay their staff and hire them on more than a profit outlook within an unstable crypto-scene but on the base of liable working contracts. When the direction is truly to build a whole system of executives (like in every democratic system) you need police-force, social force, courts, you name it. Then you also have the entire administration apparatus, which we see provided offline. Do you really think people here have the consistency and patience to act in this way? I don't. But maybe I am wrong. Time will tell.
I didn't criticize the method, but the options you give there. You can reach a democratic consensus that we will prevent climate change through technological advancements. When those aren't possible, we will still suffer the consequences of the planet heating up, no matter which method lead to the consensus.
The next part of your comment sounds like "yes doctor, I know you studied this, but I read on the internet...". Thanks for confirming that I wasted my time.
And regarding the rest, you have absolutely no understanding what a decentralized system means. We're not steemit's staff, they are a part of the community like every other stakeholder. You didn't even read the whitepaper of the system you criticize.
I would not say to my doctor that I found something on the Internet which may contradict what he just diagnosed. I know my doc for about twenty years and trust him. I know his practise, how to reach him on phone and I therefore give myself easily into his hands.
Why are you saying you are wasting your time when this exchange of comments can be a means to establish something like trust? Just because I am cautious and openly admit that I have difficulties in giving trust right away?
I don't understand, what are you meaning with "they are a part of the community" in this sentence:
Who, Steemit Inc?
If you would like to know if I have read the whitepaper, just ask me if I did. I'll answer you honestly.
My understanding of decentralization may differ from yours. You talk about a complex matter and I don't think the concept/definition of decentralization is already a fixed one. It's in the development and can contain many flaws as chances. You may look at this papers:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12167461.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/abteilungen/oi/publikationen/wsi_schrape_oss.pdf
https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/46002/ssoar-2016-schrape-Open-Source-Projekte_als_Utopie_Methode_und.pdf?sequence=1
My proposals connected to the systemic consensus method. If you read carefully you will notice that I offered what busies peoples minds currently. But I am not at all determined what I will do with the outcome. I am just really interested in the results. I invited everybody to discuss the proposals and add something.
You are working right now in a group of witnesses. This method might be something for you. I wanted to get attention for the method and used the Zeitgeist. Before, I chose a totally different topic in my first post on systemic consensus. It was a bit too complicated. So that is my second run.
Zu deiner Info: Du findest einen Kommentar zu unserem Thread hier auf meinem Blog: https://steemit.com/steemit/@erh.germany/kommentar-wer-macht-das-social-in-media-eine-systemische-sicht