You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Hive Hardfork 24: Upcoming Release Candidate, Testnet, and Other Info

in #hiveblockchain2 years ago

It would be great if you can introduce a downvoting facility along with the current upvoting facility to the proposal system. The value of the proposal can be calculated based on the sum of both upvoted and downvoted stake.

I personally feel that it is one of the most needed change right now. I guess there is already a feeling that the proposal system is being exploited or there there is a possibility to exploit it.

I know that there is already a feature in pipeline to introduce a facility to amend the value. Along with that feature it will be great if you can introduce a downvote feature for proposals. I guess then it will be a lot more fair.

I feel many people would agree to this. 😀


There was talk of making proposals cost 1HBD per day to propose instead of just 10HBD total.
I think this could stop junk more than downvoting and it would burn more stuff too.

What if someone don't want a proposal to pop up at all. Reducing the cost won't help much. But it will definitely help but not for what we are trying to achieve with a downvote.

There are a few proposals that run for years or months that are just annoying to see. If it costs 1 HBD a day, people may think twice before running it for years when it isn't necessary.

I don't particularly like the idea of downvoting proposals unless it also comes with the option of being able to downvote witnesses.

Yes, I will also be very happy if a witness downvoting is also introduced. Ideally, when we moved to the new chain, it would have been fair if all the witness votes were cleared and new witness votes were made. That would have been a fair thing.

Apparently there was a major exploit with downvoting proposals on Bitshares (Steem predecessor.) I don't know the details and would like to read a write-up on that if anyone is willing to explain the risks of having proposal downvotes? From an intuitive point of view, it seems like a good idea at first glance.

I'm also just saying that from the top of my head. I'm finding it hard to foresee any problem with this. I believe that it can create a fair distribution of the resources. I guess many people did not initally like the idea of downvote system for the posts. But today we live with that. So why not experiment it.

Think of the refund proposal(s) as a way to downvote every other proposal

That's a work around and by the way voting a return proposal and downvoting are two different things.

Like ausbitbank said, if you upvote the "refund proposal" then you are essentially downvoting every other proposal to an equal amount of your upvote. If you want to also support a specific proposal, then upvote the refund proposal as well as the individual proposal you want to support, thus negating the "downvote" (return proposal).

I still think upvoting the return proposal is not the same as downvoting an existing proposal. Both are two different things. The return proposal is unnecessarily creating a huge bench mark for the proposals to even get listed. A small guy who is just starting with an idea will not even be able to come to the benchmark.

With the current system, we don't even have an option to bring a proposal down. If something is overrated, the community should have a facility to reduce the rating of a proposal. I'm sure return proposal is not a solution. It is just preventing to some extent but unnecessarily creating a huge benchmark like I said.

This system needs to be fixed and I think downvote would be an ideal solution.

For a moment forget the small guy who is just starting, and imagine the rich guy who is exploiting. He upvotes his exploit and downvotes everyone else thereby doubling his power. The small guy is even more screwed than when he had to face a return proposal, particularly when more than one rich guy is pulling the same shenanigans.

A return proposal is not an ideal solution to the small guy's predicament, but it is a solution to keep things moving without doubling the risk of centralization.

We already have a fair amount of centralization here already. We cannot help much. And yes return proposal helps but it definitely is not a solution.

By doing this you are also harming proposals you don't care about or don't know about. The return proposal is not ideal.

I disagree that downvotes are the answer to the problem you raise.

With downvotes in the current system a whale could upvote the return, upvote the ones they like, and downvote all other proposals. Then the barrier to entry for a new proposal would be FAR FAR worse than it currently is.

You can't just slap on downvotes and say "yep everything will be fixed now". You will have the same issues, only exaggerated.

There's nothing to disagree on regarding downvotes as I never said downvotes were the solution.

One account should not be able to vote on more than a certain amount of proposals and there could be a predetermined floor instead of relying on the return proposal to fulfil two functions. The return proposal was necessary to ensure the pool didn't get robbed by selfish proposals, however, allowing whales to actively control its level is neither fair nor ideal.

A fork could say proposals will not pass if they don't get at least x votes from at least y people, considering active hive. Everything below the floor will be returned to the DAO. The return proposal was a stop-gap measure to cover an oversight in the SPS/DAO and should be made permanent and fixed, or floating on some level based on some pre-determined function of active hive.

This is not really good, because if someone wants a certain proposal to get funded whereas not the others one, then this will not work

This this this this!

They tried the same approach on another blockchain but they abandoned it preety soon because they exploited it using or presenting an attack vector.

What is this other Blockchain that you are talking about? Don't you think the current system is also in such a way that it can be exploited?