the bottom line is that forking the blockchain is costly and requires a lot of organisation at present, so we aren't going to see forks adopted that only contain small changes. this means that forks have to be collections of changes that often include larger work/changes. this in turn means that only really the main development team are likely to ever release a fork that gets accepted. the best option currently for getting a change like this implemented is for it to gain acceptance with the wider community without actually coding it, then having it included in a future fork.
changes like your proposed one aren't something that can really be tested other than on the live network because their implications are more social/political and take more time to manifest than testing usually allows.
the idea itself is interesting to me, however, it does imply that rather than having a 'tyranny of stake', we might see a 'tyranny of habituation'.. In other words, great people might get zeroed out just because they had to leave the blockchain for a while - whereas the anti social people might gain power just because they keep posting. In fact, it would motivate the use of bots to keep accounts active, which would not be healthy for spam on the network.
However, this does 'flag the underlying problem of policing in general... The more opposition that people get from policy enforcers, the more they will amp up their response and if anti-spam downvoters don't act with integrity, then we might see a cascade of events where spam dramatically increases in order to serve as 'chaff' that is designed to overpower the downvoters so that they are less effective.
what exactly is the "problem" with "spam" ?
we already have decentralized blacklists and mute-lists
spam uses network resources that cost money - plus also requires effort from users to block out if it is all decentralised.
implement a nominal fee for posting
like they did on blurt
most people never see "spam" because they only look at their own blog (and replies to their own comments)
don't they always say they want to be more like twitter ?
can you imagine downvotes on twitter ?
i haven't heard any of them say that, but maybe. twitter is definitely not a model to aim for!
they want the userbase and media recognition that twitter enjoys
i think they need to understand that twitter and the old media are both tools of oppression, designed for human farming. they are both operated, ultimately, by the same groups. shifting people to hive is also liberating them and that means much more than just writing code - it's an evolutionary process.
part of the "problem" seems to be people with a lot of stake wanting to "boost the token price" instead of simply trying to make an awesome place where people can share all kinds of ideas with each other and find other like-minded individuals
i've been told that the rep system is not part of the blockchain
it is merely a function of the front-ends
so, we just need to get hive.blog and peakd.com onboard
also, it wouldn't necessarily generate spam
most of these accounts simply don't post anything because if they did, they'd be exposed to possible downvote retaliation
Reputation is part of the blockchain: https://developers.hive.io/tutorials-python/account_reputation.html
The front ends just convert the raw blockchain value into a more meaningful number and adjust their presentation of posts as they see fit.
ok, awesome, good to know