Negative curation is part of the whitepaper, and it's even quoted in this post. Steemit didn't have to add anything later, and it surely doesn't need to be justified.
Downvotes were called downvotes before they were flags, that was renamed because they were used for disagreement with opinions. Turned out flags was a bit too harsh, thus it was reverted again. If you tell history, make sure you know all of it.
Constant self upvoting is harmful to everyone else, as the pool is shared between all users. Downvotes are not harmful, as they don't take anything away, they just give it back to the pool to be distributed differently.
By what you write, you seem to be in favour of a pure PoS model. Why would we need content then? There's hundreds of coins where you get your share of the inflation based on your stake.
Proof of brain can work to a certain degree. If the community makes it so. If not, we can save a lot of overhead and just ditch the content and rewards.
That'd surely help with attracting more people, look how all the PoS coins are thriving, especially those with a high inflation! /s
(ps screw autocorrect)
Yes, you are correct, this is why I said:
Page 14 of 32 starting at the VOTING ABUSE header directly contradicts page 15 of 32 which in summary says:
Pages 14 through 15 and the beginning of page 16 are written in such a way where the language can be interpreted in two different ways. One which highlights negative curation and the other which says; Eliminating "abuse" is not possible. So what you end up with is almost a psychological optical illusion where you see either a young woman or an old witch, and so you're given a choice. You can do normal human behavior, live and let live and accept the fact that eliminating abuse is not possible and shouldn't be the goal. Or you can act like a crustation whose about to be boiled alive and try and make sure that everyone goes down with you.
Steem's a pretty impressive weird fucking thing, whatever it is. But I'll be damned if I'm going to adjust my behavior to act accordingly to an analogy that is historically used to illustrate one of the most negative traits in human psychology, and crustaceans alike, that being crab mentality. Just imagine, this weird and strange new invention which combines social media with blockchain tech has convinced you that for the greater good of itself, you should act like a desperate creature whose about to be boiled alive and ensure that harm comes to others. That is some trick, and it's probably on a par with what cordyceps fungi does to ants, or what the ministry of love did to Winston Smith.
If steem is the bucket and we are the crabs, and people are trying to recoup what they lost in what may arguably be at this point considered a shit coin. Why not just let them do what they need to do? Not everyone is going to come here for the same reasons. Maybe I do lean a little towards proof of stake, but steem allocates power based on stake, but I can't imagine that anyone bought in just for the power to hold others down. Can you? So there is a proof of stake element baked into this, let's call it power of stake. You can be a Mother Teresa or a Hitler with your stake power, or a schizophrenic cross between the two. One thing is for certain.
You seem to be doing this because people aren't subscribing to proof of brain "as they should be," but we've just determined that proof of brain is impossible. In a world of sock puppets and stake disparity, proof of wallet remains king. I think they need to rewrite the whole whitepaper, or possibly rewrite the code into something that's a little bit more harmonious.
But it's true, it's not possible to fully eliminate it. It can be minimized though. Why is this nebulous?
And yes, of course it is a (social) experiment. That's part of what makes it interesting :)
I don't see it as the negative as which crab mentality is seen usually, but a positive spin to it. It's nice in the bucket :P
I still believe in the potential of rewarding good content. That hasn't worked well with the system we had, so it has to be improved. If someone doesn't think that's possible, they should just accept that they made a bad investment and cut their losses, instead of making sure that those who try steering the ship around will fail.
I suggested to give those who prefer PoS the possibility to opt out of the reward pool. That didn't gain much traction, instead we have the EIP. So I support that.
If you invest in stocks and the company goes a direction you don't like, do you get out or try to sabotage the company?
Nebulous because it seems hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused. The whitepaper appears to suggest two different paths in the same breath. When I say social experiment, I mean on par with Milgram’s experiment. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if this isn’t someone’s long-term design to study mob psychology and how it relates to those that do not participate. What makes people adopt one behavior over another, or which percent of people will choose the right path over the left? I’m sure there are lots of invaluable data that can be gleaned, and perhaps one day and AI will read the chain, derive insight, and get an AI equivalent to a chuckle from it. As for now, the joke is on us, unless or until someone can make a video selling the product honestly and in a way that makes it an appealing investment. As for your last question, you’d try to get out before getting boiled alive, just like any crab in a bucket would. But then again, everyone is doing that, and most people are kicking themselves for not bailing at 12 USD. In the end, if Steem does not shape itself up into an appealing product, I see it as a game of musical chairs.
Calling it a mob is a nice way to discredit people exercising their given rights. It doesn't have any substance in my eyes, as a mob for me implies that they exceed their rights.
That's valid for 99% of crypto "investors"
I see we won't find a common ground. All that's left for me is wonder why people who fundamentally disagree with the ideas written out in the whitepaper invested in the first place, or didn't get out when they had the chance at a profit of several hundred percent.
Blaming those who want to improve the system to work closer to the initial idea, because they want to recoup losses/have additional gains on the backs of current and future investors is nothing I would feel sympathy with.