Proof of Brain Theory & Further Optimization

in #pob3 years ago (edited)

Further Optimization of Proof of Brain (PoB)


HIVE is a base layer governance token.

No one token can reward all things. I foresee HIVE being a "rare" token to earn in the future as more and more tokenized communities pop up and as HIVE inflation goes down. Those who accumulated HIVE early enough to get a large enough stake have a "cheat code" of sorts, a asset accepted everywhere, coveted platform-wide, to "tip" for "x" - "x" being anything your brain can think of, as HIVE will transcend all tokenized communities and barriers. It can be seen as the upvote of the internet, like visa, accepted everywhere. With it, you can have access to endless content, knockdown paywalls with the click of an upvote. It'll be like having all of your favorite subscriptions paid for, for life. It'll be like having infinite free marketing for your business at the tip of your mouse. The ability to incentivize anyone, anytime for anything will be seen and known as one of the most amazing concepts ever created in the digital world. It flips all business models on its head, it's much more frictionless than traditional tipping, and once you go PoB upvotes for tipping, you don't go back to out-of-pocket tipping. It just does not make sense.

HIVE is the "Crypto Punk" of upvotes, the rarest of the rare, the most highly regarded; we're just in the unminted phase ;). HIVE best fits as the top token to seek and an honor to be earned, unexpectedly, among your journey earning many other types of tokens, NFTs, and assets. However, alone with HIVE only rewards makes for an awkward place, as there can only be so many large curators vs. potential content creators, one far exceeding the other.

Community curators in tokenized communities are akin to gatekeepers; that's why you want as many of them as possible with the lowest entry possible to become one. What is good about having niche-specific curators is, these curators are more likely to see your car-related content in a car-related community. Niche communities offer people a way to "grow a stake" with their knowledge and helpfulness of a subject with a greater chance of being seen. Having a community with a specific theme and its own siloed reward pool means you have greater inflation to give to fewer people, which means, on average, your car-loving community members are exceedingly more likely to earn rewards in a car-themed community, etc.

Sure, you may not always be earning HIVE on your post, but the car community mods like your content, and you're loaded with car coins. You're also loaded with several other coins of hobbies that you find interesting. You now have a sense of ownership in your interest, a invisible bond with your community, a network that can form monetary value simply by the quality of knowledge in that community. Community tokens give ownership built on immutable HIVE land that can be developed, painted, molded in an endless variety of ways, giving everyone a chance to "earn" something.

Diminishing the ability to earn is not the way; web 3 is the abundance economy. People can earn money on HIVE; they do daily; that's nothing to be ashamed of; they'll earn a hell of a lot more from talking about their Splinterlands investment on LEO; hey, that's two tokens in one post!

Rewarding of content, games, and all of the rest will be done increasingly on tokenized communities. This is both game theory optimal and has already played out in practice. People in tokenized communities have started to experience greater monetary rewards than they have on Hive. Splinterlands has its own in-game token that it rewards its players with, which lives outside the influence of HIVE PoB.

One of the most important reasons to have PoB token distribution on the base layer is to get the governance token in as many good actors' hands as possible and offset the inflation rewards that witnesses & DAO contractors make. We are a staked-based electoral system. We must always make sure to keep a balanced token distribution; if not, we risk being Justin Sun'd again. 2 years ago, who would have believed what happened to us would have even been possible? We live in crazy times, and it's best to make sure we learn from our mistakes and make an effort to always distribute HIVE to as many loyal Hivers who power up and vote in governance. - This is our superpower; this is what separates us from everyone else; it's the ace up our sleeve that will benefit us down the road if we steady the course.- It starts with and ends with the token distribution on any stake-based electorial blockchain. It's first and foremost the thing that matters for censorship resistance of the base layer.

The biggest plague to BTC was China's centralized hash rate (akin to stake in PoS). Now that China has come out against BTC, supposedly, we see a big relief in the BTC community due to the further decentralization of the hash rate. How much would BTC be worth if it was known that 90% hash rate in China? It would be worth whatever the Chinese market makers make it, as no one else would use it because it would be worthless to anyone except the Chinese government.

"It's not about what attackers won't do; it's about what they CAN'T do." Like I said previously, no one wants to hear, "oh, don't worry, the tiger won't eat you..." you want to hear, "the tiger CAN'T eat you!"

We must learn from our mistakes, and everyone else's because, thankfully, we can't make every mistake ourselves, but we can learn from every mistake made.

When this technology first came out as Steem, the price of STEEM boomed, it became a top 3 cryptocurrency, and people were making thousands of dollars per post left and right. Big names would join, get thousands of dollars in upvotes, tell their large followings, the token was spread far and wide, the price blew up in value, and all was seemingly swell. Everything was new, no one understood how to exploit the system right away, and decent curation was happening, which helped create the initial network effect. People from all over flocked to this new social media that paid you to post! While it didn't always attract the "good" people, the good people it did attract ended up being priceless. This lasted for a while; lots of curating was going on, but the exploiters started to understand how the system worked, and the flaws started to surface over time.

Now, it is never the exploiter's fault for exploiting a "game." I view all of this as a game, with rules and ways to play. The object of the game is to create a balanced game, one where there are fewest exploits. So, if there is a way to exploit a system, don't hate the player, hate the game, or better yet, fix the game. I have a little sense of respect for people who are good at poking holes in games; I have a poker background, and that is all I did for a living for the better part of 10 years.

If someone played badly, I exploited it and made as much as I could. If I didn't, that would be a greater shame to the player; there is no honor in holding back, only honor in a hard-fought defeat/victory in fair games of skill.

The exploits started innocently, people setting out to find ways to sell votes to others; on paper seems like a good use case, right? -- People buy up the token to sell votes to others, cool. However, in practice, once exploiters found out that selling votes were far more profitable than upvoting others (real curation) and less of a hassle than creating 10x a post a day and 100% self-voting (many still did), the shininess wore off of the system. Eventually, trending was overtaken by ads using bidbots to boost their post. The worst part about bidbots was, in essence, you pay for a upvote, you get upvoted, and you earn your crypto back. So it was like free advertisements. Few understood this at first, but it quickly got out of hand and became a free for all, with bidbot owners chomping at the bit.

It got to a point where people who bought their stake wouldn't upvote others for free. The reason was simple, stakeholders who invested enough to have large enough stakes required to boost someone to trending would be MASSIVELY diluting themselves by doing organic curation.

I learned this first hand, I bought $1m worth of STEEM (@ 1$ ea) when I made my 2nd big purchase; the 1st was around $250k worth of STEEM (@ $4) - and as I was proceeding to upvote "honestly," I realized over time how badly I was getting diluted, I had to keep buying STEEM to keep up with exploiters getting it freely.

I was interested in owning a "piece" of the protocol and have my small say in governance. So being diluted by what I perceived to be "short-term investors," I felt the pressure of playing the red queen game and keeping up; mind you, my original goal was only around 1m STEEM at the time.

It was a system set up to fail, and it was spiraling out of control by the day. It got to the point that the only way you'd reach trending is if you bought votes, it was impossible to get there organically. Not many were downvoted because it came with opportunity cost at the time; there were no free downvotes back then, so that means each downvote came at the cost of your voting mana you could be using for upvotes.

With so much money to be gained by selling votes with all your voting power, those who tried to stand for good were trampled under the weight of massive exploitation that only a drastic change to the underlining economics could solve. The idea of PoB for base layer distribution was on life support.

A drastic change was made in the form of a new EIP.

PoB has changed in various ways over the years. However, the biggest shift that created the largest impact was moving from 25/75 (author/curation) to 50/50 and adding 2.5 free downvotes per day (cost zero voting mana to use.) And WOW! What a change it was! Bidbots were run out of town overnight; trending became organic again; I've never seen such a reaction with a few tweaks than what we saw. Many people new to Hive probably don't even know what a bidbot is; that shows how far we have come.

The EIP changes made even the most exploitive change their ways and do "good" out of pure greed. Due to 2.5 free daily downvotes, it was no longer more profitable to sell votes or (only) self upvote to gain 100% of the reward from both author and curator. Now it was more profitable to be getting 50% curation rewards for doing good. Mind you, this is no ordinary feat and is unseen in the token distribution world.

Downvotes are equally as important as upvotes and are far more important in practice to be used because currently, they are drastically UNDERUSED. We need to normalize downvoting, as we would give a "thumbs down" on any content on web 2.

You currently get a better feel on web 2 platforms of the objective truth of what people think of the content, simply because they can downvote in private and do not need to think of anything else.

First, if all web 2 downvotes were public, IE you could see which account downvoted content, there would be much less downvoting, even without monetary value attached to them. Most people don't like confrontation; it isn't worth putting themselves out there to be attacked.

Once you add value, that brings things to a whole new level. Because on Hive, when you downvote someone, they take it much more personal than they would a web 2 downvote.

That is why downvotes are much more important on Hive in practice; no one complains about getting an upvote, and they're sure isn't a lack of upvoting going on. But there is a lack of downvotes, and without downvotes on PoB, it's destroyed and, in essence, makes distribution turn from PoB = PoS as everyone will upvote themselves to get both curator and author rewards. We want token distribution; not rich get richer if we can help it.

Anonymous downvotes on Hive would benefit negative curation greatly, I'm not sure how that would be done, but people would use them much more liberally if we had them. This is the "magical" thing I hope someone can figure out, maybe with the use of technology such as zkrollups.

PoB is very important and still in its infancy. What PoB has solved is an issue people have been trying to solve for decades. How do you distribute value without keeping the value for yourself? It's a difficult challenge that Hive has approached in a novel way. It's taken 5 years of being "attacked" to figure out what we know now. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it's damn good and getting better.

While downvotes are necessary for PoB to function in a decentralized way, and by adding 2.5 free downvotes, we have given plenty of ammo to the "good guys" - but inadvertently, we also gave plenty of ammo to the "bad guys." Keep in mind; we are spreading a governance token here; no one large entity should be able to censor governance distribution on a select group of people, IE "targetted bulling" - emotions should never lead to the ability to suffocate another's rewards in perpetuity without a good ability to defend vs. it.

The damage one can cause alone is on a small scale when compared to the greater ocean, but we should still try to tighten the belt there and do the best we can. And one large downvote here and there is not a big deal; the issue comes when one large entity turns to targetted bullying, focusing on one person or small group and essentially downvoting them into the ground in perpetuity regardless of the "quality" of their content. The only defense we have against this is asking good actors to dilute their stake to reverse the damage.

And while I agree that downvotes are drastically underused compared to upvotes, and downvote abuse is actually quite rare, but we do have a hole on paper. Just because something is small does not mean it cannot fester and grow larger. It can still wreak havoc, and we have been "fortunate" enough in the past to have very large stakeholders act like complete maniacs, downvoting everything in site good or bad. This gave us real-time experience in handling downvote wars on a real-time multimillion-dollar monetary network. We have had the most epic downvote wars you can imagine; most older Hivers here know them by name. And while the names of the epic downvote war list are small in number, their impacts can still be felt to this day. The abusive downvotes are akin to a turd in a punchbowl; there is still much more punch than a turd.

The main issue is to counter downvote abuse has an opportunity cost to the upvoter trying to help. Under the new flat ruleset of curation rewards, the only thing that can lower your known rate of return is downvotes. Again, asking someone to do good, and in return, they get diluted is not a good business deal, and no one will take it up constantly, nor should they. Good people acting good for the sake of good at the cost of dilution end up becoming irrelevant power-wise; thus, their acts of good are useless in terms of having an effect. We saw what happened when you removed the opportunity cost of downvoting; people used them to help the platform.

So I propose a few options.

One free upvote per day that can only be used on a post that is already downvoted and can't surpass the downvote amount. The post cannot be voted on twice, meaning everyone who voted before the downvote can't revote the post with the free upvote.

For example, say a post is nuked to zero, the exploiter cant use the free upvote because the exploiter already self-voted and cant self-vote the same post twice, so all the bad actors trying to exploit a post cant re-exploit it.

However, if the post is nuked to zero by bad actors, outside good actors can come in and use their free upvote to counter.

A bad actor has no good outside votes, only self-votes; therefore, the only thing that can be downvoted is the attacker's own vote; therefore, they cannot use the free vote to counter. Since the free upvote can only be used on a downvoted post, you can't use it to earn anything, IE it's not like a free spam post upvote per day for attackers.

This is doing the same thing we did with free downvotes except for upvotes; it removes the opportunity cost to reverse downvote abuse. In practice, we know if you let good people do good without being penalized, they will do good.

EDIT* 8/11/21 - thanks to @smooth who rightfully pointed out an obvious attack vector here that I somehow overlooked. "You can split your stake into two accounts, post with both, upvote one post with each account, and then use the other account to counter downvotes." - This makes this defense actually more of an attack vector by giving abusers the ability to recoup losses. - But there may be a way to do it in a different way and accomplish the same goal. Further from smooth: "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."

Another idea is an off-chain solution that can be paired with the above idea or done separately.

Downvotes are human-run and, therefore, a human issue to solve both inside and outside of the code. We can always have anti-abuse proposals for those that are being downvoted maliciously.

A DAO proposal where a powered-up, ownerless account (null the private keys) that is set to work when thresholds are met - IE, this account only upvotes when this proposal passes x amount of votes, etc.

The idea is you have a DAO-funded bot that powers up Hive and is only activated via a trigger. The trigger happens when the "victim" sets a proposal to the community with their information and evidence, and enough of the stakeholders agree that there was, in fact, abuse—the community votes to reverse the damage. The victim would receive "anti-abuse tokens" (AAT) where they burn them to use the anti-abuse bot, input the URL of the link they want an upvote on it, and the bot votes the post based on the number of tokens burned. AAT user beware; having the anti-abuse bot vote your post does not guarantee it will not be downvoted, so do not think of them as a "free immutable vote" that can be cast on "spammy" content. The tokens would need to be tied to the account, the account can burn the tokens, when burned the bot can check that they were burned, then be activated. Basically, a way a token is "stuck" in an account and an event can be triggered telling the bot to vote a post.

A neat feature here, when one is deemed an "abusive" downvoter, one could put them on a "list" pending community approval, whereby every time the attacker downvotes their victim, the victim automatically receives AAT proportionately.

I've yet to find a way to punish abusive downvoters in the same way you can punish abusive upvoters. See, when someone upvotes a spam post, downvoters come and remove rewards; ouch, there is your punishment as the upvoter. The downvoter does not have any recourse to deal with; so far in this post, we've only managed to waste said attackers' time, which is a sort of punishment but not a direct one that results in monetary loss.

PoB is a growing organism, and I believe we have gotten very far on this idea. However, if something's not broken, but it can be improved, it's as good as broken. Let us always strive for the best we can achieve.

I have other ideas; as I was writing this, I actually had to rewrite it as I came up with the 1st idea I thought worked better in practice. In theory, you want to give the "good people" as much ammo as possible while giving "bad people" the least. In the 1st situation, both good and bad have equal footing at 2.5 free downvotes, but the 1 free upvote vs. downvotes gives the good an edge both ways, for positive and negative curation.


Seems like an interesting dynamic to add.

I think most of this issue can be solved by more social interactions.
If more folks would join the hivewatchers discord and follow what they are up to, there wouldn't be these mistaken perceptions about what they do.

I try to keep up with the active downvoters and don't really see much abusive behavior from them.
The few isolated incidences I've been involved in have been more personality related than systemic, imo.

Given another year, I think defi opportunities will have most folks doing more than just posting to earn their lunch.
I know I am making more trading h-e tokens than I do posting.

I agree it isn't much of a problem anymore. But there was some talk on improving PoB, and I gave what I thought could help. Nothing here is going to radically change anything at this point; we're splitting hairs. As inflation goes down and tokenized communities go up, this whole convo will be mute. With that said, I love the theory behind it all and can talk about this stuff all day.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this @theycallmedan, it's helping me think through the various token types I'm working on for HAT. I will definitely use this as a resource.

As I've become more involved with the bad people downvote folks, I've also been pondering ways to help keep abuse to a minimum on both sides of the coin. It's hard finding a way to strike a balance between giving power to "good" people without also risking those good people becoming bad actors because they now have power. I think you're getting close, with the ideas above, to finding a way.

And as an extension of what @antisocialist said, if more people spent time in the @hivewatchers Discord, they would get a feel for the lengths some bad actors go in denying they've done anything wrong. It's given me a somewhat depressing, but necessary reality check that we need more individuals like @guiltyparties and groups like HiveDownvoteRewards: to keep reward pool abuse in check.

It's always the grey areas that trip me up though - like the situation with @playdice that @braaiboy wrote about a short time after your post (The broken downvote system ) that echos something similar that happened with @pixresteemer's sadly nuked Dice Roller Game. I totally get that we don't want the blockchain overrun with gambling apps and spammers/scammers trying to cheat the system, but where do we draw the line? And who does the drawing?

Lots to think about, and thanks for helping to continue the conversation, Dan. Even if my brain hurts now. 😂

Yeah... like I said in my post: I (mostly) agree that we do need someone to keep things in check, but I don't think that "someone" should be a single person or even just a handful. The decisions are far too subjective.

but where do we draw the line? And who does the drawing?

and in addition: How does the offender rectify/appeal the line when that line is drawn incorrectly?

I totally get that we don't want the blockchain overrun with gambling apps

I actually disagree with this part. Not everyone is a seasoned writer, so writing 300/1000/???+ word articles is not necc. for everyone. Unless of course that is all we want HIVE to be... a blogging platform (as long as your articles meet XYZ criteria)
... a) I think that's very limiting... but b) then we sit with the problem again of drawing that line of what IS blogging and what should be downvoted.
Is sharing a post with a 30 min video and 2 sentences introducing it OK? What about (an EPIC) 30sec video & 5 words? etc. etc. ... I think we're making the same point though: Who draws the line, and what recourse is there when they get it wrong?

It's a community effort, join the discords and put in your two cents.
If you see something you don't like, bring attention to it.

We are a social platform, we should be social.
Walling ourselves off is what leads to these divisions.
Miscommunications are certain when we don't express ourselves to each other.

Yeah, That's exactly what I did... but HW isn't very good at communicating other than copy-pasting "These are our rules, this is how you bow down to us and apologise and then we'll consider looking into it"

Their curt "you've been found guilty of vote-buying" (which is false and what I was trying to dispute) was all the time they were willing to spend on me.

... and then the wheels fell off after being ignored for a few days on discord, I took to a (drunken) rant on-chain #FacePalm

It's a community effort

I agree it should be... but right now it's not :-(

Exercise your duty to mitigate abuse.

Appeal blacklist flags here.

Get your flag reviewed for redemption.

These is where most of the discussion of flags is held.
Not all flaggers join us here, but alot do.
I've been in H-DR since it began.
If nobody in the community steps up and offers input then the small crowd of folks willing to flag abuse just do what they do.
More input is welcome and needed.
You can just lurk until you need to speak out.
Dissent is appreciated, by most of us.

Pulling from the pool to finance business endeavors has been frowned upon since very early on.
Steemsports comes to mind.
I was making more voting steemsports than I was posting.
If you voted the winning team you got to split the liquid rewards from the comment.

I guess I missed the playdice dustup, but I would've pointed to steemsports as an example.
The pool is for enticing newbs, not financing a gambling habit, imo.
Being a blogger, and not much of a gambler, I might be biased.

I don't like curie and the other gangs financing payoffs for their members from the pool, either.
Those payoffs come at the expense of the redfish on the long tail, the very people we are trying to attract.
It's counterintuitive, I know.
Everybody wants a whale vote, nobody understands that that value comes from everybody else.

When whales, or curation gangs, vote, everybody else gets less.

Anonymous downvotes on Hive would benefit negative curation greatly, I'm not sure how that would be done, but people would use them much more liberally if we had them.

I think anonymous downvoting would be a good thing, but it would have to be implemented with your idea to counter bad downvoting.

Could this be implemented by distributing the downvote indirectly through another account? Perhaps one could delegate Hive to this account equivalent to one full downvote value; and the command to downvote a certain account would be anonymized through a dapp: it would have to be off chain (in order to function as a black box). It could then receive a command to downvote one account with the delegated Hive received from a user without being traceable as the command to downvote a certain account would be off chain. This "downvote account" could be used by all Hive users and the only thing visible on the blockchain would be a delegation to this account (but not the command to downvote an account). Could this work?

Sounds interesting, from a code PoV I couldn't tell you how to do it but it seems possible. Lots you can do off-chain. I forgot to mention in this post, downvote delegations would also help.

Downvote delegations would help.
Can we also have fractional dao and witness voting?

I'd like that a lot.

It's an interesting idea but the real problem is both the option we talked about earlier and the one presented here require extensive development to just test out as a concept.

If made, this wouldn't be so much used by our quality content creators or standard bad actors but by the types who collude with/manipulate others for their own ends. Honest people who received a downvote they're confused by wouldn't use it. I've never once seen a honest content creator actually ask for their downvote to be countered; they only want to know why. It's not about the monetary value for them but about the fact that someone downvoted their work.

Developing a quality of post algorithm would be a more worthwhile investment of time and money to support the PoB concept.

There have been times when a large stakeholder would, in essence, downvote every single thing to the ground; I know of people who had even their comments hit every time. As we move into the future, this becomes less of an issue, but since PoB still relies heavily on HIVE atm, it still can cause a stink. It's hasn't really happened in a while on that scale. But since the talk of PoB has come up recently, I wanted to take a swing at putting some ideas out there. @smooth pointed out something I missed somehow, the fact a large stakeholder could simply split the stake then use the FD on the other account.

I like the idea of a free upvote to counter malicious downvoting. It would not cost a lot, the impact would not be too high either, but for some victims this could make a decisive difference between frustration and leaving Hive or staying.

IMO SMTs and niches fix it too. If a solid RC marketplace behind the dapps, user dont need in the first line hive rewards.

And we should make a difference between content creator and users. On youtube are more user than content creators.

So i think we should make the comment game more attractive for the users.

We will always loss content creators, like any other platform. Some come, some go. The users, reader and people that interact with post are the people that store the value IMO.

With Smts, the frustration level should hit a all time low IMO :) Less Flagwars and bullying

The content creators are at least equally important as the viewers. Good content drives traffic. Without good content the platform will bleed out like Steemit.
SMTs? They are promised since 4 years. Or do you consider HE-tokens as SMTs?

I refer to some rewarding option besides hive that's accessible to everyone for are affordable price.

I agree that content creators are important, but we can't fix hate with hive. People will always be downvoted and insulted for some content. Special for content people don't value or different opinion content.

If I look to the RT ( the Russia today news that's on hive), it becomes non-stop downvotes. The same will happen always to any kind of content some don't like.

IMO only some bubbles can fix that problem.

For example alternative medicine to regular medicine. These people hate each other. I think we can see the same trend of covid content.

There is IMO no solution besides SMTs to that. The good thing is, even centralized platforms cant fix it, so if we can fix it we generate real value :)

I’m chewing on the free upvote idea. One overall challenge we have is that it takes documentation and explanations to help people understand the intricacies of the model and how to use voting power effectively. I wish it could be explained in an elevator ride!

This is a great write-up. I loved the historical perspective. Even though I lived through the bidbot days and downvote wars, it was really interesting to read your analysis of their impact. We really have come a long way!

Those downvote wars sound as nasty as the ones we saw elsewhere! Maybe even more because millions were probably at stake here...

In my opinion, which is just at the small scale 'normie' observation level, all the issues the second half of the post you described was supposed to be solved with the community fork and better implementation of SMTs. At least that was what I remember them both being promised as solutions to bid bots and excessive flagging to protect stake/turf often seemingly over political differences(if it wasn't over a $300 sbd post from bid bots).

In an inflationary economic system promoted as a capitalistic environment that encourages growth, excessive flagging and bid bots I did feel was essential for a thriving economy.

I noticed, once the market crashed and SBDs extremely high capital gains were lost in conjunction to bid bots losing $ with their unsustainable investment models; to be the real nail in the coffin. You put millions in at a price much higher than now but you don't seem to care. Which is awesome; you hopefully had that too lose and are here for the long run... Like some of those bid bots who give massive support now but most are gone. At the same time it was abundantly clear Steem was centralized, Ned was selling off massive stake, couldn't afford the team he hired and then sold at a dollar.

Once the second layer is used more exclusively for content creation, hopefully, we can have true walled off communities from the first layer where flagging and better control of content in a community can happen more effectively(of course with HFs that allow for that). That is, in my opinion, what will solve the problems brought up in the second half of the post.

But for the very reasons you brought up in the first half of the post, I am excited about Hive overall. First layer investors will have the ability to create a real life community driven by tokens you create off your Hive stake. It is going to happen, I am willing to bet. A real life decentralized community ran off tokens powered by Hive. Now that is what I think is the ultimate realization. That we are truly pioneering into a real future yet to be fully realized.

But in the nearer future, tokens will probably be one of the very few ways people will be able to accumulate Hive... On a satoshi level in one of these communities, or God forbid another decentralized forked chain off Hive that everyone mitigates to. 😆

Anyways I think I rambled on enough here. I am sure I spoke ignorantly on some observations I've made over the past 4 years as a small fish.

Another thought provoking and entertaining adventure through your thoughts on important matters with Hive.

Thanks for being here and adding value to the chain, all of your investments and your valuable time into Hive!

I like the idea of being able to help negate a downvote. A week or so ago, I was chatting with a quality author, and even her replies to me were getting downvoted somehow. Even before I could read the reply. I think it was only dust, but still disturbing to see.

Excellent post @theycallmedan, invites a great reflection, a lot of information to assimilate and process
I appreciate you sharing this information. Have a great day

I foresee HIVE being a "rare" token to earn in the future as more and more tokenized communities pop up and as HIVE inflation goes down.

I’ve seen proposals to entirely remove Hive as a posting reward and only give it to witnesses and hodlers. FWIW, I’d be very much opposed to such a move.

On the other hand, what do I know? I was initially opposed to the change from 75/25 to 50/50; but now I think it was a great change.

I’ve seen proposals to entirely remove Hive as a posting reward and only give it to witnesses and hodlers

Heavily opposed as well. That's a rug pull in my mind. Makes my investment mostly useless to me.

Anonymous downvotes would be interesting, but could also lead to frustration and even more abuse. I think the PoB system as it is today is not that bad after all, especially after the 50/50 curation change, things got drastically better. Any other attempt like free upvotes to counter a downvote could unfortunately also be misused, but I like the idea to somewhere appeal a downvote, making the case visible (does not need to be a proposal but could also be a special page), so that other users can judge and either up or downvote the post.

Any other attempt like free upvotes to counter a downvote could unfortunately also be misused

How do you think it can be misused?

An abuser who is legitimately downvoted could use the free upvote to counter the downvote.

OK, so if an abuser is legitimately downvoted, does a free upvote help them in some way? Currently, abusers can use a regular upvote to counter downvotes on their posts. How would a free upvote help them? (Remember they can't use both types of upvotes on a post.)

Thinking about it a bit, I guess I can see how it could help abusers to harvest more rewards. If they make their own post (let's say it's plagiarized post), they can upvote other posts for curation rewards AND counteract any downvotes on their plagiarized post using the free upvote. So if anyone upvotes their plagiarized post (e.g. they didn't know it was plagiarized), it could be free money for them if they can use the free upvote to counteract any downvotes received for plagiarism. So I guess I can see how it could help them.

That is a good attack vector, but the extent is pretty low. First off, you can't upvote for more than the upvote is worth nor more than your HP. So, this would take a scammer posting others' content, getting high rewards, + being/having access to a large stake. Most scammers don't keep HP powered up, they steal it right away, so their free upvote would be worthless.

In the rare scenario where you had a large stakeholder posting other content, they would quickly be found out, curators would stop voting them, and the downvotes would mount up as word got around. We had a similar scenario. Actually, that's what I love about Hive. It seems like we have seen it all; even the most unlikely of events take place.

The person who was legitimately downvoted had to have something to downvote in the first place, which would be the self vote. You can't unvote and revote the post twice with the free upvote. So the free upvote does not help the attacker in this case.

You can split your stake into two accounts, post with both, upvote one post with each account, and then use the other account to counter downvotes.

Yeah, this is true. If a large abuser split his votes, he would get a free counter effectively for 100% of his vote. That would be too big of an attack vector for what would be gained; upvote abuse is done much more than any other type of abuse.

In my view absusive downvotes are mostly a problem because there are too few downvotes. As a result, when downvotes do happen they have outsize impact both financial and emotional. The solution to this is not to nerf downvotes, it's actually to make them better. Your suggestion of anonymous downvotes is one such way, but there are probably others. I would actually prefer that all votes (both up and down) be anonymous, as is the case on most centralized sites. Focus would then shift from who is voting and whether that vote is "legitimate" to whether the net payout is appropriate (and if someone who has not voted disagrees, they can vote up or down to express that). That's the right focus.

People should be able to "like" content non-anonymously, a social operation that doesn't affect payouts.

More directly to the point here in your post, I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized.

Why does it have to be his stake, what about the DAO?

Interesting angle adding a token to that proposal bit we talked about awhile back. Don't really have much to add today. In listening and thinking mode.

Yeah, it may be the only solution; we can fiddle around. The idea for token was that downvotes meant to "hurt the most" are done as close to payout as possible. So the community/victim couldn't react in time to have the bot vote the targeted post. I thought the token made it much more flexible.

There's no good reason to be abusive with downvotes. That's why I was leaning more towards muting the ability for an account to downvote temporarily, provided the community agreed to the proposal highlighting the issue with the account. The abusive account would still be able to function normally, just can't downvote until their time is served. Downvote jail LOL!

Yea, as I was writing this post, at midnight, it got to the point of no return, it was either needed to be cut short, or I'd have to push on and make it a full book. I do find value in giving power to the community to be flexible. We vote in our witnesses; they have a lot of features to fiddle with. We have the DAO; people can vote there for the direction of the DAO funds. Could we extend this even further to PoB? Interesting concept for sure.

I thought my recent was long at about 1200 less words, yet I probably could have wrote 5000 more. I know the feeling.

And when it comes to giving or taking away in a world like what's being created here, the more minds in on the decisions, the better. The more straightforward of an approach that removes the canvassing, politicking, drumming up support, etc.; the better. That's why I like that proposal system. The option is simply there, and those wishing to take part can simply do it without being pressured. You wouldn't see the abusive types who enjoy harassing others succeeding in getting downvotes muted by being pushy; just like don't see folks asking for development funds trying to get them by being pushy. But I'm not trying to sell this idea. Just thinking about it openly. Already wrote a book on it, stashed away in some random comment section out there.

Too much effort for not enough return imo. The current system works well.

In 10 years I don't see hive as a PoB token. It should just be here for RCs and governance.

Maybe we can make a huge airdrop to all hive holders of a Hive POB token, that would exactly like hive now but with no effect on governance or RCs.

Somebody's definitely on fire these days.

Wow, what a write up. Gives me hope in the future of the platform. I plan to keep powering up over next 10+ years.


I dm'd you

Congratulations @theycallmedan! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You received more than 440000 HP as payout for your posts and comments.
Your next payout target is 442000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because your rewards can be split into HP and HBD

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Something good is nice

Well put. Really bravo

Why do I love the sound of this?

PoB is a growing organism, and I believe we have gotten very far on this idea. However, if something's not broken, but it can be improved, it's as good as broken. Let us always strive for the best we can achieve.

A living organism that can be improved?

We've come a long way from "Ain't broken... Don't fix it."

Posted via

Most of us living organisims could use a little improving :) ... Exercise and learning in the case of us humans and bees!

That is hive in a nutshell.

Posted via

Really bravo



@theycallmedan! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @naythan.

Learn more about $PIZZA Token at (5/10)

~~~ embed:1425301120793022464 twitter metadata:eWFzaXJidWxvaHx8aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS95YXNpcmJ1bG9oL3N0YXR1cy8xNDI1MzAxMTIwNzkzMDIyNDY0fA== ~~~
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at

Nice work. Keep doing such great work.

Btw, dan maybe you can do something with this idea.

What about:

  • Wanna join Hive

  • Download Keychain ( like the mobile app) first

  • Scan QR code with Keys that auto import

  • (update needed and no idea it works) Login is also QR code scan that generates a short and easy key with the Key to log in.

So nobody would need to deal with keys, or scan QR code and send the transaction on phone. Or log in with phone. IMO this could be something really cool.

Keychain could be the ultimate dapp for payments and log in stuff on hive.

i found your article fascinating to read, even if i don't know what a bidbot is. i had a steem account that i never used, just to read on steem. i discovered hive last year, after i started to play splinterlands. the rest is history. Keep writing like stuff like this.

Posted via

Interesting proposal and also a good piece of the history of Hive too. As a newcomer, I don't really know much about the inception of this blockchain so it's always nice to find about more

Congratulations @theycallmedan! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with the following badge:

Post with the most upvotes of the day.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

One free upvote per day that can only be used on a post that is already downvoted and can't surpass the downvote amount. The post cannot be voted on twice, meaning everyone who voted before the downvote can't revote the post with the free upvote.

Best idea so far. It's the easiest to implement IMHO. It's a neat idea. I'd love to see this on Hive 😃



@theycallmedan! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @d-zero.

Learn more about $PIZZA Token at (3/10)

Downvotes are complex. And in real world downvotes has different faces. In real world, society ignores specific set of the bad in order to uplift the good. This trick has been used by Woke culture on Netflix so much so they literally curate their own specific interest and ignore everything else that the audience needs. This helps them and frees them from the curation of the content they don't want. This may sound good in theory but it brings up the "freedom of speech" issue.

If you use same logic on downvotes they can be harvested and opinion of specific can be kept down in the grave. At the end what people can do is they continue to uplift the good content they want. So that way the other opinion is neither silenced nor downvoted. So on second level what happens with bad content, spam is another level to worry about. But I don't think people who want to uplift the good should be dealing with the spam or downvoted content the same way. Because you don't see that happening in real life either. Different people deal with creation, different people deal with maintaining, different set of people for recycling, cleaning etc. Why the same logic can't be used?

My 2 cents.

First of all, I apologize for my not perfect English (partly I use the translator). I believe that voting and commenting without real interest is wrong, it is also wrong for your own project. Posts are meant to be read, useful information can be found, a lot can be learned, and the community grows. the topic is complex, they are not very simple notions to understand, I'm trying to learn slowly, reading the posts.

my tribute to the hive world

I must say that I'm a big fan of the nuance in your language. I like the idea with the tokens and the DAO account that reverses the maneuver based on a decision of active peers who either agree or disagree that the content either deserved or did not deserve the downvote. The other solution is an illusion. Even if everyone got a free upvote, the chances of a party powerful enough to reverse it is slim to none. Not to name names here, but seriously including some folks in this discussion is on a par with the whole fox/henhouse thing. Just play their "solution" several steps forward in your head and see if that helps the aggrieved party. Or does it allow swiper the fox to continue doing what they're doing?

Yo Dan! Can you hit me up on discord? I'd like to hear your thoughts about something.

Axie Buzz#8286

Eso si que es dedicarle tiempo a escribir, muy bueno, me sirvio mucho leerlo, gracias.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this @theycallmedan .I like the idea of a free upvote to counter malicious downvoting.I appreciate you sharing this information. Have a great day

Even after 8M the information is valuable. Don't have much and also it's not even a pity compared to you but sending u 10 ecency points to promote the tipping culture.

Thanks for writing such a wonderful piece for rewards policing. Your contribution can lead us to wonders in the long run.

While downvotes are necessary for PoB to function in a decentralized way.

This what exactly I have written about before. Not only me but guys like @onealfa are also pressing about downvotes on POB.

Who will take the charge to downvote is another topic. But yeah obviously we don't want this from the founder. Let the community decide for themselves.

 3 years ago  Reveal Comment