You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: You cannot take away from the author that which does not belong to the author.

in Proof of Brain2 months ago

It is more akin to you deciding you don't like anchovies so down voting the potential earnings of anchovies to $0 so people that want anchovies can't pay for them because you effectively remove their ability to pay and the people making anchovies eventually stop putting them on the shelf.

If you decide the reward is worth $0 and you force that to occur you are removing the ability of other people to pay for products they want.

This is the best summary I've heard regarding why the current DV system is so problematic. Very well stated!

Sort:  

I've been cautious to upvote at times fearing the post may get downvoted to zero in the end and that is always in the back of my head meaning I kind of want to avoid upvoting any post which might get flagged and that includes posts which should not be flagged and I only upvote posts which I think should not be downvoted but some are downvoted and that is the crazy thing that I have to add to all of this mayhem.

I wrote a few posts that were more detailed that basically described this back in the steemit days. It didn't seem to matter.

Now a combination of what you have suggested and the jury thing related to Algorand that @logiczombie pointed out might be a path towards actually solving this problem but maintaining the ability to DV spam, plagiarism, and abuse.

Yes, it is sort of like going to the supermarket with a certain amount of store credits, you load up your shopping cart with all your favorites and go through the checkout line. Then, on your way to your car, the downvote zombies come and empty half your cart. You're like "Hey, I paid for those with valid store credits", to which they reply, the store policy (code, law, whatever), posted for all to see, is that the stuff isn't yours until it actually makes it to your car. Oh, and sorry about the fact that you can't get your credits back -- sucks for you, but that's the 'law of the land'.

Next time you go to the grocery store, you leave the anchovies on the shelf (even though you really love them) and all your other favorites, because the downvote zombies have made it clear that anchovies and all those other goodies you crave are not worth purchasing (and will be confiscated and put back on the shelf), even though you think otherwise.

It is exceedingly draconian.

Several of us within the Proof of Brain tribe are actively working on various solutions that we will try to get implemented as temporal experiments in the near future.

I think it is worse than that. They don't empty your cart. They just decide they don't have to pay the vendor. Then that vendor reduces quality, and/or stops providing products.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

Perhaps we could add a Flag-The-Flag button to go after Flag Abusers or put the Flag Abusers in Flagger Trial to piggyback Logic Zombies' Post-Flag Trial Idea and extent to the Flaggers as well as opposed to just to the Flagged.

Yeah we recommended this back in the Steemit days. It could be potentially abused using multiple accounts. The multiple accounts issue is usually what defeats most ideas.

That random jury selection thing is the first one I've read that might work even if people have multiple accounts.

Only let verified accounts vote, perhaps that can counter the Multiple Accounts Argument. But of course the counter to that would be who verifies the accounts and what are the requirements for having an account verified. Well, my response would be to have a combination of requirements be it to have enough witnesses confirm an account is of a real person via links, phone numbers, etc, and say a certain number of Hive Power and a certain number of posts and a certain number of Reputation points. Also, make sure the account is at least 6 months old or come up with another magic number. And perhaps a certain number of required followers because that means the account must be representative of a real person. But then again, I am not sure how I feel about all of this as I have several accounts on Hive. but I guess you may only want one vote per person kind of thing or goes the argument.

Only let verified accounts vote, perhaps that can counter the Multiple Accounts Argument.

Yep. That is one way. Yet a lot of people prefer to be anonymous.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

ACCOUNT "VERIFICATION" ONLY FAVORS THE "VERIFIERS"

THE TOP 90% OF ACTIVE HIVE STAKE-HOLDERS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR JURY SELECTION, THIS WOULD ELIMINATE WEENIE-SOCK-PUPPETS.

Would that include me with almost almost 1,000 HP?

I think anyone with more than 200 HIVE-POWER who actively posts would qualify.

ALSO, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO "PRESERVE" "DOWNVOTING" FOR "SPAM" "PLAGIARISM" AND "ABUSE"

THAT'S WHAT THE GODDAMNED JURY IS FOR.

THE MUTE BUTTON IS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE

ALSO, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO "PRESERVE" "DOWNVOTING" FOR "SPAM" "PLAGIARISM" AND "ABUSE"

THAT'S WHAT THE GODDAMNED JURY IS FOR.

THE MUTE BUTTON IS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE