RE: Curangel downvotes and Hive

I don't see an upvote as intrinsically good or bad, or a downvote for that matter. Upvotes can be used for abuse, and each downvote adds to everyone else's rewards.

I mean no disrespect, but this isn't a church. Though I've seen my fair share of churchgoers self adulate for their generosity. I've even known some to take covertly from offering plates.

There's nothing more valid than one's opinion to justify anything, an I'm not counting on that. I'd rather just leave the whole squabble of justification by the wayside and get on with life.

I do think we need to avoid demoralizing our users, and especially the new ones. I think bots generally diminish the relative impact of manual human users, which can be psychologically degrading (especially when they're designed for degrading people), but I don't think we should prohibit them or anything.

From my perspective it seems a matter of cultural direction.

Anyone with voting power can challenge any vote, up or down. There's not really any mechanical way of stopping the community from deciding to nullify any vote. If the opposition votes are strong enough it will be rendered ineffectual.

It's all under the inequality breeding backdrop of delegated proof of stake though, where you can buy influence. At least this sort of system means many get the chance to earn stake organically from miscellaneous contribution.

The natural consequences of any action will be there despite what anyone does. There are social repercussions for any action in a social setting. It doesn't matter whether you admit it or not.

Sure people like to hate from behind closed doors. People like to do lots of things behind closed doors. I like to pet my dog behind a locked one.

Applied cryptography is akin to a bunch of closed and locked doors, and I like the direction it's taking things in the world. This way we can have privacy and freedom, so long as we're willing to seize them.

Thanks for the discussion.

I appreciate it, and wish you well.