As witness 73 and rep 61 with only a small dolphin wallet, my opinion is not worth nearly as much to others as it is to myself lol. I think there is merit to your suggestion but as a 3 decade plus veteran developer of software, my immediate reaction is to analyze how to break this and its too easy. Just multi account, generate even more spam and upvote yourself. This happens already so Im certain this solution would only exacerbate that.
Then you get into philosophical issues of control and rules in the decentralized free market we really would prefer to establish in the first place.
Something must be done but i believe the only viable solution is social pressure and cultural change in the behavior of users.
Criminals gonna crime, spammers gonna spam and cheaters gonna cheat.
How do we get our overall society to affect the change we want to see in our world?
Tough question not metaphorically distant from the american gun control debate. We have rules already that aren't working. We want freedom for the rule abiding decent folk and we want to mitigate the damage done by opportunistic greedy bastards and their bikini clad ramen recipe posting sisters.
Do I have a solution? Sadly no. But I think this one moves the problem from single account abusers to an even harder to control or see or stop pile of sockpuppets getting that money out of the pool anyway.
What are we overlooking?
Where is the damn easy button to fixing this?
Perhaps the answer lies not in limiting post quantities per time cycle but rather in the debates going on about linear reward curves vs capped or reverse weighted curves?
@SirCork
Witness #73
Founder @YouAreHOPE Foundation
Founder @SteemStarNetwork
Thank you for adding that in, and I love the way you ended it. There are obviously some things that I overlooked, and there apparently is no easy button. Thanks @sircork.
I don’t even think curve changes can help for all the reasons you described. People would still calculate the most efficient way of deploying their stake across multiple accounts to counteract the curve.
I think you have it right with social pressure & cultural change. A big part of that is downvoting. I feel the stigma the flag holds now needs to be removed and it needs to gain acceptance among the community.
Downvoting is very important. All the altruistic "big voices" such as @timcliff, @Patrice and others, including my smaller dolphin self are working hard to get people to understand the importance of the downvote in corrective action such as this. Could you be at risk of spiteful retaliation? Sure, but does that in turn shine a poor light on an asshole spite voter? Usually, yes, and the good whales love to eat those guys for breakfast.
Sushi anyone?
Absolutely. Particularly in the case of abusive self voting, if that individual revenge flags it’s nice to realize they have effectively turned every vote on your blog into flags against them, since the amount of voting power they need to counter your rewards they would have been voting themselves in a vacuum. If you draw out revenge flags, you’ve sneakily made everyone who upvoted your work a flagger in your cause!
I remember when Dan was proposing a “negation” mechanic and I think this could be revisited. We have upvotes with downvotes as an inverse action. If we’ve added delegation, we should conceivably have inverse delegation, having a portion of your SP negating the SP of another as Dan proposed. Bad actors can be neutralized without “censoring” their posts or needing to code a bot to automatically follow all their actions around.
In the case of the most well known rewards dispute ongoing... genuine followers feel like the content they support is being attacked by flags and their vote and voice are trying to be suppressed. In actuality there’s only about 3 accounts voting patterns under scrutiny creating 92% of the rewards, and using their stake in a way that some in the broader community feel is irresponsible. If negation were possible, the average user would never see any flags, the post value wouldn’t decrease as it had never gone up in the first place, and the actual follower support would be left untouched - resulting in $20-$30 rewards per post.
50% attack? Control more than half the SP on the network, negate everyone's SP, and you can vote on yourself for 100% of the reward pool.
The social stigma of downvoting isn't the only issue with it. It's also extremely time consuming to use it efficiently. @steemcleaners is a full time job and they're only fighting a percentage of the small fries. Vote negation was supposed to reduce the amount of time and energy put into preventing abuse. It would be a good place to start, downvoting wouldn't be enough.
I don't think you can ever really lose that stigma. Most of the time a minnow isn't going to flag a whale account, because their flag is just an irritating fly to them, but that whale can wipe them out with their return flag. I really don't know how it can be seen as anything but a punishment.
To a point you are correct, but every week on the @SteemStarNetwork, both @patrice from SteemCleaners and I on our respective streaming shows, remind everyone to flag anyway. Make the point, use your voice. If the whale retaliates spitefully, let me know.
This is where quadratic rewards empowered even the smallest of minnows with the chance to trim a decent chunk from a high payout - low quality post.
Actually, it could prove to be more useful than whatever the current situation is.
If the account creation process will continue to take as much time as it is taking now, I'm pretty sure spammers will leave Steemit in the blink of an eye. lol
They don't sign up via steemit as it is, there are dozens of sites to sign up at, including via the command line wallet. Steemit inc is not the block chain, and its a huge problem that people do not understand the difference.
I'm aware that there are 3 ways to sign up kind sir.
Any proof of fact that people aren't using Steemit to sign up though?
Join @patrice of steemcleaners and I on @steemstarnetwork every Sunday or Tuesday night and get some facts, including your proof. And there are dozens of ways to sign up, not "three" nor did I say "three" so, whats your point?
My point is simply that I know of 3 ways to sign up. Not trying to start any argument, I know you're a knowledgeable veteran of Steemit and are a part of @patrice's talk show, but please don't judge and look down at a minnow who is only trying to lighten up a tense situation.
Also, thank you for bringing it to my attention that there are many more ways to sign up. That's interesting.
Cheers!
anonsteem
steeminvite
steemit
utopian
command line wallet
steemconnect
any other of the dozens of condenser clones
and others
Patrice's show is her own on Tuesdays, Mines on Sundays. Both are on the network I created and built
Not arguing, but you came at me on the offensive demanding "proof" and such.
It hardly sounded like "lightening up" anything.
And again, STEEMIT is not STEEM. I am a veteran witness of the entire block chain and many, many related interfaces. Given my choice, steemit inc itself would dry up and get out of the way, since they constantly prove themselves incapable of producing 90s era quality UX/UIs in their interfaces to the chain and are more concerned with Ned's salon hair budget than fixing glaring errors and omissions and failures in their lame ass attempt at a blogging site.
I use them all, chain, busy, zapple, dmania, all the d-sites... we really dont even need steemit inc anymore, and they cant seem to focus to save their own asses.
Haha true. Sorry if I seemed to be at the offense, I thought you were being condescending, so that transpired.
I meant my original comment was trying to lighten things up btw. Guess it failed horribly. Again.
Agreed, there needs to be something unique in Steemit if it wants to stay in the game and not become obsolete.
I'll follow both of your shows as, evidently, I still have a lot to learn!
Nice talking to you, @sircork!
In all fairness, they do a great job on his hair.
I'm thinking that in a side by side comparison with Justin Trudeau, @ned could well sweep elections based on his hair alone. Justin would be a formidable opponent though.
There was once a claymation short video platform that pitted celebrities against one another in WWE style deathmatches. Pity we can't bring it back for such a contest.
Just the hair, duking it out to the death, in glorious old school claymation. I'd upvote the hell out of that!
Edit: I'm inspired. I can see a whole series of coifs vs. do's... Kim Jong Un vs. Trump, Marge Simpson vs. Sinead O'connor (the invisible opponent), pony-tailed hipsters vs. military high and tight, corn-rowed Dexter from The Offspring vs. some rapper's Afropuffs...
I earlier commented that rather than looking to impose limits, we should be looking to incentivize behaviour we want to encourage.
The example I used was to increase curation rewards for each account upvoted in a day. This encourages curators to use a single account, and to broadly penetrate the market seeking accounts to upvote. I thought a 1% increase per each new account upvoted might work, but I've not done any math to examine whether this is a good figure, and I'm confident better heads than mine are better able to calculate an optimal increase.
Thanks!