I don't understand why "self-voting" is considered a crime.
And if it's so horrifying, can't you just restrict it in code?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't understand why "self-voting" is considered a crime.
And if it's so horrifying, can't you just restrict it in code?
I wouldn't call it a "crime", but in case everybody just upvoted themselves there wasn't any (financial) incentive anymore to produce 'quality content'.
There also wasn't any reason anymore for new users to join, start posting, tell their friends to join too (network effect), and thus increase the value of HIVE.
That's not that easy (even if there would be ideas) because of the possibility to create multiple accounts.
I disagree.
Many of the largest stake holders merely delegate their stake to earn dividends (like (at)freedom).
They don't "create quality content" and they are fully "content quality agnostic" as long as they get their dividend payouts.
Most small to medium sized accounts are here to share their interests and hope to get a few pennies of encouragement.
And many forums (even small ones) disable self-voting.
It can't possibly be that complicated to enact, and at least it would signal to the "honest" that the behavior is frowned upon.
I never would have guessed that powerful players might destroy my rep for such a thing.
Especially since nobody clearly states "the rules".
And as far as "multiple accounts" go, the best fix for that would be to disable the automatic delegations for new members.
Many behemoth sites started out as "invite only" (it creates an air of prestige and exclusivity) and I'm sure people would even sign-up to voluntarily coach and sponsor new members with a small delegation (I know I would).
If the new member remained inactive, or only voted (or downvoted) on the same accounts over and over, after issuing a polite warning, the sponsor could withdraw the delegation.
No, you don't. :)
If that what you write is true, that doesn't mean that what I wrote was wrong.
There are several kinds of behaviours which are bad for the platform. Self-voting is just one among others.
That wouldn't prevent several accounts of a single user to upvote each other.
There IS financial incentive for small fish (who only wield below minimum payout votes) to produce content that attracts upvotes (from accounts wielding above minimum payout votes).
But it would disincentivize people setting up free accounts in order to combine their collective voting power (from automatic newb delegations) at virtually no cost (getting money for nothing).
Splitting your OWN stake between multiple accounts gives you NO advantages in terms of reward pool percentages.
Sure, but IF everybody only upvoted themselves there wasn't anymore.
And that's why too many self-votes have a negative effet on the platform.
Sure, but also no disadvantages. and these accounts could then upvote each other, which is nothing else than somewhat 'hidden' self-voting. That's why it's not that easy to prevent self-votes through code.
There is nothing in place today that can stop "everybody" from self-voting.
And yet, strangely, it hasn't managed to kill the concept.
I fully understand that "determined self-voters" are difficult to stop.
I'm simply proposing a bare-minimum code patch that would prevent the noobs from voting on their own posts and comments in order to send a signal that self-voting is considered some sort of "cheat".
As it stands now, people are only "informed" when they notice their rep's been cut in half for no apparent reason.