Hello Steemians, an issue has been discovered which is preventing delegations from functioning properly. Delegations require an account to have voting mana before it can delegate. This is done to prevent malicious actors from exploiting delegations to obtain more voting mana than an account should have.
Currently, the way the blockchain is checking downvote mana returns false negatives which causes it to “believe” that an account should not be allowed to delegate any Steem Power. The false negative only presents in cases involving accounts with unusually large Steem Power holdings, which is why the behavior was not exposed through testing.
New Steem Accounts
One example of how this impacts users is that when Steemit creates accounts for new Steem users, we delegate Steem Power to them so that they can use the blockchain. Due to this issue, Steemit cannot delegate to new accounts.
The logic governing delegations resides in consensus because delegations impact how people vote, which impacts how rewards are distributed. It is important that any logic which influences the distribution of tokens be immutable and decentralized. Because this requires a consensus change, and even though the changes are minimal, this means we have to perform another hardfork. Fortunately, the minimal nature of the changes makes them easily reviewable by the Witnesses.
Because this is preventing Steemit from creating new Steem accounts, and because we will likely not have the opportunity to hardfork again until the SMT hardfork, we believe that it is best to perform this hardfork as soon as possible. We have spoken with the Witnesses and come to a consensus that the best time to execute this hardfork is 11:00 AM EDT. Because this is another hardfork it will be named 0.22.0 (or Hardfork 22).
We do not expect the user experience on steemit.com to be impacted by this hardfork
Reward Distribution
Some users have reported bugs in rewards which we have also investigated. In some cases there may be some artifacting that is a result of Hivemind's brief lag, but this is not an issue with the blockchain itself. Some users have also reported that votes are not delivering the amount of rewards that they “should.” These reports do not appear to be due to a bug, but instead highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of how votes are meant to work on Steem that is the result of the linear reward system that operated inside #OldSteem.
The goal of Proof-of-Brain is to reward people who create high-quality content as determined by the crowd. Votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people. If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.
Vote Worth
A “vote” is not “worth” anything. A vote is a signal of value and rewards should only be distributed if other people receive that signal and then amplify it by placing more votes on top of it. Under the linear rewards curve used in #OldSteem it didn’t matter what you voted on. That meant that it was easier to predict what a vote would be worth. But the problem was that it didn’t matter what you voted on. This is precisely the problem that the convergent linear reward curve was intended to solve; to make it matter again what you voted on.
On #NewSteem it matters what you vote on. That is Proof-of-Brain working.
The Steemit Team
I'm wishing all the witnesses who are still in need of catching up on sleep from HardFork21 some positive vibes in preparation of another HardFork - Appreciate all that you're doing!
You said it. Not just the witnesses, the developers too.
When I saw your Hardfork 22 Tomorrow post, I was sure it was a joke.
After the debacle of HF20, I figured the next once couldn’t possibly be such a fustercluck. Live and learn.
It's not. At least things are under control.
Indeed - and the developers too!
Sleep? I don't remember what it is 😵
<3 You can come relax with a beer this Saturday :')
Should we go to Serey, Weku, Bear Shares, Smoke, etc, instead?
What is high-quality content???
Please define.
Displayable on 4k screens.
jk
Lol 😂
Posted using Partiko Android
I wish. The pay is horrendous if that were true.
Look at this silly twat making manual comments. Someone has too much time on their hands!!
who?
me
who are you?
I am an ugly monkey.
I call bs!
Enforcer is Leonis, a nice guy :)
Content, written by 'famous' users. ;-)
Content which contributes to growing Steem and increasing its value.
What specifically that means is going to be subjective so stakeholders can express their own opinions through voting. The system is supposed to find a consensus on the matter.
Thinking of "quality content" as "proof of valuable contribution" and having this as part of our culture might have kept us in the top 20 and we might not have needed an SPS to get things done.
https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/my-version-of-steem-is-not-content-based-it-is-contribution-based
Glad to see another that acknowledges the issue with culture. I would go as far to say it was the main issue plaguing the platform.
But I'm glad to be seeing lots of good flags on trending. It's like a battle.
Oh btw, potentially viral meme on my page if you want to check it out. (Approaching 200 views on YT with 11 likes last I checked. Not my usual by a longshot) Political parody vid. Check it out if that's your thing.
Btw I agree 100% on the post.
Agree and I've linked to that post in some of the discussion which got us to where we are now. I'm actually surprised to see that I didn't vote on it, but I may not have seen it when it was active.
Supposed is a keyword here.
My opinion: we, as a society, are so not ready yet.
Time to level up. No more waiting. #newsteem.
I’m sorry, but I do not understand… how is “high quality” determined? By votes? How many votes does mean “high quality”?
Content which contributes to growing Steem and increasing its value.
What specifically that means is going to be subjective so stakeholders can express their own opinions through voting. The system is supposed to find a consensus on the matter.
This definition eats it own tail. Steem's proposed value to the external universe where money comes from is that it should support the production of content that people want to consume. If "high quality content" is "content which contributes to Steem" then there's no external value and no reason for anyone outside to want any.
Which is where we are today.
Hah, you manage to invalidate your own argument in the very same paragraph.
If you believe that producing content that people want to consume is the best way to attract money then by all means vote for it. Personally, I believe that some such content does so, but not all, and I believe that some contributions bring value apart from (what is traditionally known as) producing content. Where our votes align, the rewards paid will be the greatest, where they don't, rewards will be smaller.
What boggles my mind is everyone trying to fit what "quality content" is into one short definition.
How about dot dot dot we go case by case.
Id wager that by going case by case more often then not we would have concensus about what is quality, does it provide value, etc.
Posted using Partiko Android
Case by case is the reality, no matter what people say.
Glad you're still here. Keep crashing the gates of this party.
Не разумем @smidge-tv, због чега се љутиш. Заратио си са групом најмоћнијих, против којих цела српска заједница на Стимиту не би имала никакве шансе, и инсистираш да ти се људи у твојој тврдоглавости придруже. Просто отвори нови налог и заборави шта је било пре њега.
i was bored with HF21 anyway, been there done that
HF21 was soooo
last weekyesterdayhonestly best answers evah!
Onwards to #NewSquaredSteem
ha, hope you didnt make any HF21 t shirts
Nah I luckily canceled that order in time.. I am second guessing this tattoo though 😬
You could get one of those wrap around your arm jobs?
newsteemoldsteemnewsteemoldsteemnewsteemoldsteemOhhh good idea!!! 😛
hahahaha, I want my oatmeal back
LOL. Did you even think about fuzz-testing this fork? The "do a few things on the testnet" testing method is so 1988. Just in case you don't know, we have tools now.
You also continue to operate under the misapprehension that because something is highly-voted-on it is in some way valuable, which is completely opposite to the facts on the ground on Steem.
I don't know what universe you guys live in.
I mean it's essentially what steempeak does. If our users find an issue we fix it. Not sure what the issue is?
Steempeak has it easy we don't have to have consensus we just update but i mean this is software... find an error and fix it.
Bugs in a front end are easily fixed on demand as you say. The situation is a lot different when dealing with a (supposed to be) immutable database. If there are bugs that corrupt the state, recovering from that can be very painful, or in extreme cases not even possible.
I agree that the development process is a bit light on testing. Ideally every operation would have a comprehensive set of unit tests across the full range of allowable inputs and states, as well as random (fuzz) tests, but this is actually very difficult to achieve in practice. Hopefully the developers will make steps in that direction though.
Yes and this bug is not painful nor extreme.
That does appear to be the case but when bugs aren't caught in testing it indicates a risk of other more painful or extreme bugs also getting through.
As much as I love Steempeak and obviously the good work of your hands and that of your team, I beg to differ. A front end and the what is essentially the foundation that front end resides cannot compare.
I feel most witnesses no longer resonate with other steemians struggling to make something on the chain. I am still waiting to see if this hard fork actually does anything to improve manual curation. I doubt it. Heavily! 😬😬
Posted using Partiko Android
This hardfork is just a matter of fixing a delegation bug. I'm thinking you're talking about last hardfork?
Yes. It was in response to this.
Bugs will always be discovered even months into the latest hardfork so that doesn't concern me as much.
I was just addressing something that I have been overly concerned with since HF21 was announced. But now that it is here let us see what it brings.
I'm voting on this because I suspect everyone else will...
nah, it's actually a quality comment. Guess I could be throwing my vote away..
... In many cases you can replace "high-quality" with 'high-popularity'.
I will keep upvoting 'unpopular', not so well known authors, as well as comments, if I think they deserve it, and just don't care about the new "who-gets-the-most-curation-reward-because-he votes-the-fastest-on-popular-stuff-game". :)
I hope some other users with enough SP will do the same: spread their votes on as many different users as possible instead of accumulating them.
Yay! Thanks for doing that @jaki01. We need more people like you here.
We all wanna be popular, too. You go girl. Just kidding.
NewNewSteem!
I hope it goes smoothly.. (please don't say quality content) It triggers everyone. :)
Updating your slot machine!
Yeah! Thank you... I need to make another post about that.
I was just squaring the steem.. but #newnewsteem has that new car smell...
Quality comment.
So HF 23 can be expected a few days from now?
Why didn't steemit do a test or two?? Hope this recharges that down-vote mana again for one more free round of fun!
So maybe steemit should break the funds down into smaller accounts to delegate for now??? If steemit is only account with issue then just spork it! What size accounts face this issue? Maybe there's something else going on beause this all sounds awfully shady to me! Surprise, steemit can't delegate! We had to build that downvote thingy, by the way let's just shut onboarding off altogether????? No- wonder why STEEM took a deep dive today! Yikes!
So you're saying you never tested steemit's ability to delegate to new accounts during testing?
Isn't that the most common delegation in steem blockchain history?
@steemitblog,
Okay lets' deal with our brain of proof :D Seems bidbot got a bad time though :D
$trdo
Cheers~
Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @steemitblog!
@steemitblog got 6 TRDO & @theguruasia got 4 TRDO!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
I don't even know what I wanna say. But best of luck with the fixes. What fun!
Flagged for disagreement regarding rewards. I think you should be paying out for this, rather than making nothing.
Bye Steemkillers. It was fun while it lasted.
Just make sure you have enough coffee :)
Good to the last drop.
Not really. If I vote on something and think it's good.. and the crowd doesn't agree, I am now throwing my vote away.
You have in essence created a system where I will vote only on things that already have votes, regardless of quality. Theoretically anyway..
If no one has voted on it, then there's no incentive to be the first. Well done for creating a hive mind instead of rewarding the individual choice of a steemian. That's not quite a proof of brain so much as a proof of hivemind.
This is what curation rewards, which are boosted in HF21, are for. The first to vote gets the largest share of rewards.
True.. but why you downvoted the comment by @tts in this post? People like me like their service.
Then upvote it, he can do as he wants with his stake just like you can.
Upvoted. But you see, I used my 100% voting power to resurrect it, still it is hidden. @smooth is a whale with over 300k SPs. Bilateral talks are always wise!
Until recently nearly all of my SP was delegated away and my votes were only worth a few thousand SP. I routinely downvoted tts that way too. I'm continuing to do it with undelegated SP because I think its rep is too high but I will likely pull back on vote power at some point.
I saw something posted a while back about a bunch of accounts owned by the same person upvoting that user and funneling funds out of the ecosystem. I have spent no time investigating.. but after that post starting seeing downvotes on @tts. I throw this out there cause it might be influencing people's choices.
I have no strong opinion either way.
Although what they say above.. one vote will mean nothing if it's not followed up.. it's not so much curation but crowdsourced actions.
Sure crowdsourcing a reasonable term for it.
Yes if you vote on something that no one else in the community votes on, then sure it could maybe not go above dust threshold and technically “not count”. But it’s important to remember that proof of brain implies the mind of the crowd. So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all.
Now as someone who curates low rewarded content often, I don’t look at what will get big votes and place my vote accordingly. I vote on what I think adds value, and many times it’s not been found by the crowd yet.. so then my goal is to make it be seen. This way, I’m not the only vote and the author is rewarded.
Essentially this means the community needs to work together, which is a given in a social environment. Lack of tools for content discovery has always made this hard. I know this will be improved in the upcoming communities but until then we can pull together with curation.
You may consider joining the @c-squared curation group - which is open sourcing curation through the community. Then when you find a post you can bring it in and it will be curated by the account (as well as many who look there for posts to vote).
This is a way we can work together to ensure we aren’t the only vote on a good post. Consider it 🙂
https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw
Discord. the real 'back-end' of steem. 😂
Good points though.
I know ... sigh but one day we will not have to go to discord - that’s the dream! 😜
It's the only proof of brain applicable. The crowd does not have a brain. Only individuals do.
Insofar as they do, that is.
Necessitating that votes only count if they are backed by sufficient stake utterly destroys proof of brain. It is in fact proof of wallet, and a large factor in the decline of Steem heretofore, and that which is ensuing presently.
I said nothing about sufficient stake, I said one vote on one post doesn’t really show “consensus” of a shared pool, then I gave an option for how we can work together to make our votes count for more on the content we want to support.
That is what you said, and I disagreed, pointing out that crowds don't have brains, anymore than institutions have rights. Individual people do have rights, brains, and comprise society.
Aiming at society's brain you will miss, because society doesn't have a brain. Proof of brain is limited to individuals. This underlying principle is why consensus isn't ubiquitous, why society is diverse, and why we aren't all going to vote one way.
The important thing about our votes is that they are unique, and derived from our personal values. That is why bots degrade society when allowed to vote. They are the opposite of proof of brain. They are proof of no brain. Proof of wallet.
That has no place in society, and that's what Steem social media is.
Let me say this again in a way that maybe won’t be turned into some sort of physiological look at society and individuals brain power..
Of course a crowd doesn’t have one brain, it has many. This system was designed to be “crowdsourced” proof of brain, therefore one person saying “this adds value” no longer can be the deciding factor, and might I add never happens here.. so what I was saying is that we need to work together, as a crowd (made up of unique individuals with their own brains) to help ensure our votes “count”.
Of course not everyone will agree on one post and we don’t want them too, but that’s not really the point here.. you’re worried about one vote not counting so here’s the solution I have been giving - make sure your one vote isn’t the only one there by taking it to c-squared curation group.. which is open community sourced curation.
As far as the rest, I think this all stems from poor wording in this Steemit Inc. post, and I don’t really feel the need to explain things on their behalf.
The truth is that every social media platform is crowd sourced and so is Steem.. so we can just accept that and work to ensure the good stuff is seen or we can just complain constantly.. you choose, I’ve already made my decision.
'Join the herd. Look at this nice corral!'
The vast majority of Steem was created by ninjaminers, and most of the little created by inflation has been captured by the socks of the ninjaminers thereafter, meaning that Steem was never crowdsourced at all, and if HF21 remains the status quo, it never will be.
Unless you consider ninjaminers the crowd.
We disagree on certain fundamentals, and I am prepared to accept we won't agree. I expect three things to happen as a result of HF21: Steem price will plunge. Market cap will plunge. User retention will plunge. If I'm wrong, those things won't happen. You'll have been proved right.
If they happen, you will have been proved wrong - but it will be too late to do anything about it, because everyone that cares will be gone and unlikely in the extreme to come back.
I have come here to post and engage because my voice is singular, and I reckon I struggle not with the wisdom of the crowd, but the stupidity. You're encouraging people to sublimate themselves into the crowd, and that is simply unacceptable when the crowd is plunging over the cliff.
My way or the highway, eh? Yeah, no. That's not how society works.
It's how society breaks.
That's all fine in theory, however, if the 'crowd' follows the leader, then the leader decides what is 'good' content and all the rest of the good content not found or voted on by the leader is ignored. By having mindless curation trails, it discourages the individual from discovering content THEY think is valuable content.
I understand that there is no perfect solution and that we do need to group together in order to make progress, but I've personally witnessed certain posters getting a whole lot more attention from curation trails than other posters and that is not a good sign.
Then please go check out the one I’m talking about, as it’s not a trail and no one “leader” decides what’s Voted. It’s open to all and everyone is a curator... it’s crowd sourcing manual curation in the hopes of having an alternative to the very issues you brought up, and it’s why I am suggesting it.
C-squared has no blog... there is nothing there to look at.
Curation is done in an open discord server - https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw
Post voted with account are resteemed on @c-squared. Due to the high volume of those resteems our blogging is done on the @c-cubed account. Sorry I should have clarified that in my comment, I had in another but I understand that is confusing.
Hopefully that helps, let me know if you have questions.
Copied from the blog:
I believe this is a voting trail.
As for Discord... does that belong to Steem? Is Steem a social media platform or simply a promotional tool for other platforms? This is one of the reasons Steem is doing so poorly... it keeps sending people away instead of holding onto them. People should be discussing their vote choices ON the c-cubed or c-squared blog... not on any other platform! Why would you not keep all comments on the Steem blockchain? More comments = higher engagement = bigger community = better for Steem.
Alright, I get that we disagree, but now you're flat out lying. If I post something that a thousand minnows think is high quality, it will have a lower $ value than if one whale likes it. Don't lie to us or yourself that this system is going to fix the problem with rewarding only things worth rewarding. That's not how "quality" works, and it's not even really the intention of the change, except in a very specific case (abuse). Most good works will earn less regardless of relative value, and most whale and whale-friend posts will earn more regardless of value.
This is not a good post. Please have a person with empathy write your explanations, not someone who is revealing their irritation that the peasants didn't understand the rewards curve change.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks for the information....
Here's a little bit from me.....
I help new accounts, over half of them have decided to leave now. I also watched their post payouts go down. The ones that are left as of now, don't really have plans of sticking around. 2 of them have asked me to remove my delegations because they do not plan on sticking it out. I also know a few larger account holder that are powering down to leave as well. Which REALLY got me to thinking. So after a little thought i have decided I know what to do....
I AM POWERING DOWN AS WELL.
There is more money to be made now....doing just about ANYTHING OTHER then Steemit. Maybe someday this place will be worth stopping in to hang out. But for now, i have all my friends I made here available on discord so i don't see a need to deal with the insanity and unstableness of a self destructive, abused richman's wellfare system.
Have a great day you guys and i hope you all get it figured out.
🤗
People should be encouraged to be here as a way to save their content from censorship as opposed to only making money. My focus is on archiving the content I make. That's my priority. Also, I am playing a long game. So, people can lose patience if they are in a too big of a hurry. It can take ten years for some investments to pay off.
You are 100 percent right. That was a rant and i should have done better. My main reason to be here is archiving my story for my children. Thank you for the reality check my dear brother.
Good.
So many users will get triggered for this lol.
Posted using Partiko Android
The truth of your statement is revealed by the votes on it. That is the curse of Proof of Wallet.
I feel like cringing but thanks for the update. Do whatever is necessary to fix this.
Posted using Partiko Android
Oh Lordy Lordy. Here we go again!
An immediate hard fork to fix one issue that was identified. Sorry but totally stupid idea.
Wait at least one week. So no one can be on boarded during that week, big deal, it's not like that has ever been a priority. Take a look back and see how knee jerk reactions helped HF20. Down for a few days, problems left and right. Make a post that people can REPORT issues they are having right now with HF21, before jumping right into HF22 for a one item fix. There are other issues, and no where to report them simply. Yeah yeah tell me all about go to Discord, or go to Steem chat, or go to our face book page or our twitter page!!! Sorry we have nowhere for you to actually report the problems encountered on our Steem Block Chain, (kind of stupid really), so use some other social media outlet to let us know what the issue is.
How about a simple *Hey Folks we would like to know if you have experienced any glitchs in our steem world matrix, just leave us a comment so we can check it out. Then you might have gotten a response like this issue I am having:
Hey great job guys, but I am experiencing this issue. I use chrome for my browser, I used to be able to right click open in a new window links from my feed. I can still do that however I can not vote or comment so far about 75 % of the time in the new window. It does work, vote and comment wise, some times but not always,
I am sure there are other people looking for an easy method to let you know something is wrong, pin a post to the top of the feeds and give them the opportunity to post problems they are having. Then talk to the witnesses about an emergency HF22.
One important thing to note is that currently exchanges are down to update to the HF21 code. Giving them a new code to implement now is much more efficient than waiting for them to get back up and then telling them they need to do another HF.. which would most likely occur if Steemit Inc. “waited a week”. Just something to consider... I don’t think anyone is excited for another fork, but we have to push forward.
If it takes more than a couple of hours for an exchange to do an update to a software program, then it is not a very efficient system I guess, I do not know how long it takes to do their updates. I do not know a lot about crypto currencies, I know a lot of the other block chains have a lot more HF's than Steem. The first year for steem saw 19 HF. I have been on steemit for just over two years HF20 was the first I went through, was anyone concerned about the number of HF's in that first year?
On Friday what happens if Busy.org finds a bug that effect them? Will their request for a HF23 be passed over? On Tuesday when the first payouts from HF21 start to come in and if things go bonkers during that time frame is it going to be because of HF21 or HF22? If you wanted to delegate SP to some one right now you could do it. Are we expecting the witness to just blanket approve this HF22 with out testing it or even looking at it? It took over two months for the witnesses to look over HF21.
I think they need to continue to evaluate the fork, and watch for other problems before just blindly, (that is the way it seems to me), throwing up another hard fork. I can delegate steem and if I can delegate then almost any one else should be able to. So to me this seems strictly a Steemit Issue.
Just like your comment, alot of the grievances in the comments contends to the front end of Steemit.com or other interfaces. These frankly can be reported anywhere as long as you identify and reach out to someone responsible. It doesnt have anything to do with witnesses nodes or consensus.
The issue that steemitblog raises on the OP comes from the consensus rules themselves, the back end. Which will require a hard fork to fix. I support that a the hard fork comes asap since this is a patch and not an update.
Posted using Partiko Android
Kind of the issue isn't it finding some one that will accept being the responsible person/group. Steemitblog is steemit. An official voice of steemit. The fact that steemit can not delegate Steem is a steemit issue. If I want to delegate some steem I can do it. So steemit can not and they want another immediate Hard Fork. If no one could delegate steem then yes it might be an issue that needed an immediate fix.
Here is from their post above:
It is preventing steemit, it's not preventing me from creating tokens or going to one of the other account creation places. just steemit. In the past any time any one brought up steem block chain and steemit int he same comment it was always that they are not the same. The witnesses and steemit and all can say the witnesses do not work for steemit, but that is not how it is, is it. The witnesses are supposed to protect the chain, not steemit. After one day they found one bug, and want a hard fork because that one bug effects them, not you nor me or anyone else. They need to wait to see what other bugs are in the system. It takes a week for payouts and changes to be fully done. If they do another hard fork right away, next Tuesday are the possible screwed up anythings going to be because of HF21 or HF22? There is no harm in waiting a week to ensure, that there are no more bugs, no more hidden problems that just have not crept up yet.
It is far to early to do another HF. Let it HF21 run at least a couple of days if they do not want to wait a week. Which brings up the question of why they really want it now? Is there some other problem they are trying to fix? Is there already other bugs they found? Did something not work they way they really wanted it to? I get very leery of we fixed it, then OOPS we need to fix it again action.
Knock yourself out - https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues
You see there we go again a place outside of steemit to report issue about steemit to steemit people. I have actually been to github, I looked and decided I did not want to spend days or a week or more to figure it out. Let alone sign up to another site that is controlled by Microsoft. If I could leave a note there with out signing up I likely still would not. Microsoft controls github, they own it and can block or ban at whim. It has already happened to a few people.
So once again, lets not make it easy on people to tell us where a problem is, then we won't need to spend precious time and resources trying to fix it.
Thanks for trying to point out a place, but it is still outside of steemit and the steem block chain. A decentralized system to reach the world.
There are more than just that one story.
That's shit though. If I decide to pay $1 a month on patreon to someone because I like their content is worth paying $1 for, that dollar would go to that person, even if everyone else doesn't like their content and I'm literally that person's only patron.
If I vote on something, it's because I like it, or think it stimulates discussion or something of that nature, and it should be the same as if I pledged to them on patreon - it should go to that creator. I have reasonably low sp (but that could change) so my vote might not benefit the content I vote on just because of that, but I am not okay with my vote not rewarding the person I voted for because other people don't see the value in what I upvoted. Under a system where my vote might not support the content I want to support, I'd rather not vote on anything at all.
Just give up dear friend....
They're not listening.
😁😁
It is noteworthy that many do not grasp that flags are in fact canceling the VP of voters, rather than taking the SP of creators.
Now we have 25% more flags to fly, and soon we'll have 99% less content to vote on. Steem will no longer have value derived from a market for it when it is all concentrated in the accounts that ninjamined it (and their socks). Plan accordingly.
Tipping and voting with a shared inflation pool are very different. Tipu currently allows you to send tips to people and I hope that we have more UI imbedded ways to do so in the future, but the comparison you are attempting doesn’t make much sense.
Maybe it's not completely comparable, but that doesn't matter. Regardless of the ins and outs of how upvoting works, if I upvote something, my upvote shouldn't be worth nothing to the content I upvote just because other people don't agree. Whether it's an upvote, a donation, a tip, cryptocurrency or fiat money, popularity shouldn't dictate what my actions reward.
Popularity should play a role to a degree, which it already did in the form of things with more upvotes (or higher power upvotes - I've definitely had posts with less upvotes be worth more than ones with heaps of them due to SP) getting more rewards, and all platforms are like that to a degree, because YT for example is the same if the content isn't demonetised (more views = more ads that pay you).
However, the part of this update to Steem that makes your upvote useless if not enough other people upvote, is based on false logic. It mentions quality in its reasoning which means it assumes popular = quality.
Logan Paul, reality TV, and people posting stuff saying certain disorders / disabilities / health issues that do exist don't exist or shitcanning various science-backed (or if not scientically backed, at least harmless - ie Miracle Mineral Solution etc should be criticised) treatment options for health issues are all proof that popularity doesn't equal quality. All of these things are popular with certain groups and I would not say any of this is quality. The last two can be downright harmful and add to stigma surrounding the disorder / disability / health issue and it's various treatment options. But other people out there obviously do think it is quality enough to watch it, read it or believe it. These things are relatively popular.
But some things that are popular are actually good quality. And those things deserve to be rewarded for being quality. They are popular because they are good quality, but often also because they got found or came into the market at the right time etc.
However, the fact that some popular things are quality and some aren't, means that Steem is wrong in equating popularity with quality. Also, unless Steem Power plays zero role in the value of posts from now on, this focus on popularity won't work anyway because a post with less upvotes can still be rewarded more than a post with more upvotes, simply due to the power of the person upvoting. That translates to more popularity with powerful people, rather than more popularity in general.
Clearly, there are some major logic flaws in the approach they are presenting, due to quality and popularity not having a consistent relationship (this lack of a consistent relationship is also one of multiple reasons why liking or disliking things because they are popular - being a sheep or a hipster depending on if it is liking or disliking - as opposed to just liking what you like and not taking into account popularity is idiotic) and due to Steem Power not being moot and making only the number of upvotes matter.
Popularity pretty much always has to play some kind of role and it did in Steem in the past via more upvotes tending to mean more rewards (but again it depends because of Steem Power) and it is the same on other platforms too, but not rewarding less popular things at all even when people signalled "yes this is quality and I want to reward it" via an upvote is also wrong. This disincentivises rewarding content you truly believe in and like if you think it might not be what the community will like. Only rewarding the more popular stuff also will likely just create an echo chamber or circle jerk of less original content just reinforcing the same points of view or showing the same things that people seem to like on here. It's the same as people following trends or making types of content that just "seem to work" on YouTube because it gets more views and while combining a trend within your normal content if possible isn't too bad (ie on YouTube Scott Manley did a "bottle flip" video with a rocket in Kerbal Space Program which was a bit of fun), people following trends and choosing types of content to make based on what is popular instead of stuff they are passionate about and can do well is harmful to creative integrity and good quality content and harmful to the platform it is part of (note: people making popular content or following trends may also do it because they think it looks fun or they like it and that's not harmful to quality etc - doing it because it is the popular thing is).
Some people may keep their creative integrity and keep their content their own without changing it to appeal to a larger audience to get the little bits they were getting before this from dedicated fans on here and this is a good thing compared to them changing for the wrong reasons, but now they are more likely to change or just simply leave the platform (a decent chunk of small creators seem to be doing the latter).
The main value Steem offers to small creators - the fact that small creators are treated better here and rewarded better here and feel more like they matter and aren't a mere spec but are part of the whole community than they are on other platforms - has been very heavily diluted by this change and it wouldn't surprise me if many leave and don't come back because the main value offered to them is gone and this also signals an attitude shift towards small creators too because now popularity (and power because SP still is playing a role) indicates if you can be rewarded at all as opposed to just the amount you tend to get rewarded, which suggests an attitude that unpopular things aren't worth rewarding at all, even if the unpopular thing attracts a small but passionate fanbase who upvotes them. That fanbase should be able to reward the content they are a fan of, even if the content isn't popular. This change does display a negative attitude to small creators on here and that's destroying one of Steem's major benefits.
Regardless of any of this though, the fact is I am not okay with an upvote I make not supporting the content I want it to support. Yes, under this system, it can be a nice signal to them, much like a like on other platforms and previously at times a single upvote would still only really be that due to a single upvote not being enough to earn anything, but the bar to make upvotes support people is too high now. I am not okay with it being ignored just because other people don't like or maybe don't see the same content and think it should be rewarded. While the mechanism might be different, I'd equally not be okay with patreon deciding not to reward a creator with my pledge as I am not okay with my upvote not helping someone get rewarded on their post. I don't care if they are different. I am equally not okay with either of those things happening because I'm not okay with my attempts at rewarding people to be made moot due to the popularity of the thing I'm rewarding, regardless of if it is from a rewards pool or my own direct money.
So thats's why I haven't seen my 2.2 mil SP delegation yet...
Let's rock'n'roll. No rest.
yeah it's true, I noticed that the amount of an steemians upvote is not the same in the earning's. Someone upvoted my post with 0.040 and the other one is 0.011 but the amount shown was only 0.030. I don't understand why it's shown like this?
Check out this post:
https://steempeak.com/steem/@vandeberg/reward-curve-deep-dive
Will check it out.. always like some pretty graphics
Let's welcome HF22!
/(ㄒoㄒ)/~~
LoL
Posted using Partiko Android
I'm still smokin a J from hfork21 so all cool, do your job and let's have some fun!
Thank you Steemit, Inc. team and witnesses.
This actually looks even more exploitable by curation trails than before. No need to consume the content in question, just let a bot handle it all. So status quo remains with the new hardfork it seems. We'll see how things go I suppose.
Congratulations @steemitblog! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Without forks we are nothing.
- Descartes
@steemitblog Hello sir there is problem in reward distribution my curation reward is very very low my upvote value is 17 cent when i upvoted top trending posts i receive only 0.20 steem for curating a 17 cent upvote please check the problem
The Steem FAQ is outdated.
It says that the split of rewards is 75%, 15%, 10%.
That's not correct post HF 21. It is 65%, 15%, 10%, 10%.
The 10% SPS is only paid out if proposals reach the required acceptance by stakeholders stake weighted voting, so it's variable. This should be included in the FAQ.
Also you write :
"SMTs are planned to be launched in 2018!" -.- This has not been discovered in months.
It all still does not work after HF22 there are more bugs.
I like to see an overview with all these exceptions why payouts no longer take place. People are really confused about is and I do not have the answers.
So far it does not matter on what you vote on.
Where is the list that shows what good content is so we all know what to vote on and what to downvote?
Thank you in advance 💕
Posted using Partiko Android
Value/Quality is subjective though. Not everyone is going to like the same content, it shouldn't be up to other people what I deem worthy of rewards.
This sounds complicated, but I like it!
The last point about New Steem concerning a Proof of Brain sounds like the original vision of Old Steem which I thought was already active. I thought that your upvote reward increases as the amount and the weight of those amounts of future upvotes from others increases after you in like a reverse auctioning system. I guess you are saying that the difference is the specific amount of money that might be show up in display at the time you click on upvote as that may not reflect whatever you may get at payout when you are rewarded 7 days after the upvote. Now, if that's true, and if this is a better system for making that work in a betting system, I think that might be better then.