You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: OPEN LETTER TO STEEMIT INC., THE WITNESSES, AND THE WHALES
The key, to me, is to stop people from making multiple accounts. That's the workaround for most suggestions. But I honestly can't think of a way to enforce it. As long as one can make multiple accounts, all bets are off.
2FA would practically eliminate bots and sockpuppets, as most folks don't have as many phones as botmasters wanna run bots. It's expensive and inconvenient, but mostly it threatens the primary profit mechanism that whales generate ROI with now.
In discussion with Stinc and top witnesses, the idea was quickly met with horror and handwaved away with all possible haste. The current business is pretty much dependent on bots, and anything that threatens to curtail sockpuppets threatens Stinc and the top witnesses.
So what was the actual excuse they gave you for why that's a bad idea?
Because frankly I kind of like that idea. Anything that involves money should also involve verification - just like any other financial institution in the rest of the world.
Well, they did mention that it would be expensive, and annoying. @timcliff was who I was talking with at the time, on a post @blocktrades made about reducing the window for curation rewards from 30 minutes to 15 minutes.
He told me another witness, @neoxian or @netuoso, IIRC, said bots could defeat captchas, so there was no point. However, very few bots can, and it's a LOT more expensive than unregulated free for all for bots like we have now.
Basically, they don't want bots to go away, because that's how the big pockets get deeper, and that's who votes them into the top witness spots. If the witnesses turn on their benefactors, they won't be witnesses anymore.
So many things wrong with this idea. Steem is a decentralized crypto-currency that masquerades as a social forum. How are you going to do verification or 2-factor without a central authority?
Anyone can create new account any time. It's very easy; I have instructions on my blog on how to do it.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@neoxian/neoxian-account-creation-or-picking-up-the-slack-for-steemit-com
Remember, in Bitcoin, anyone can create a new wallet anytime. It just boils down to large numbers (keys). In the Steem system, your keys are bundled up in a nice user name "@somename".
You can link the account verification information to the power to vote, just as the password is linked to the account. It's trivial. Steem isn't Steemit, or Busy, or Zappl. Each of the interfaces I am aware of requires a password, and could just as easily require 2FA.
I get you don't like it. That doesn't mean it won't work.
Steemit isn't Steem. Steemit is a social media platform, not a cryptocurrency, and infesting a social media platform with bots degrades society.
I could list a lot of things you don't want to offshore to bots. Bots can serve admirably to manage your finances. They have no place in society.
Automating your social interactions seems in poor taste to me. Sending a bot to your friends birthday party wouldn't go over well, and it's just as useful here.
I want curation to promote good content, comments to reveal the interplay of ideas. What the hell can bots contribute to that?
Send them to mine BTC, and leave curation to people.
Edit: I get that you're going to point out that the blockchain can be accessed without any of those interfaces. Access doesn't necessarily include voting rights, and that can be trivially done as well.
None of what you just typed makes any sense. Voting happens directly on the blockchain. You don't have to explain to me the difference between the Steem blockchain and the various and numerous interfaces one could could use to access the blockchain.
Are you aware that it's possible to run some of these interfaces directly on your own machine? I have a blog post where I describe how to run a local version of Busy.
You're right, I don't like anything that attempts to centralize the system. If we are going to do that, then why even have a blockchain at all?
Yes and it's the same password for all three sites. You log in using the same keys.
So, how does the blockchain refuse to allow votes that don't come through those interfaces?
Either the blockchain is open to voting with access that doesn't require the password, or it can also require additional information, such as 2FA.
That's pretty obvious, and you're a smart person. I'd be astounded if you hadn't grasped that without my saying so.
Edit: also, it no more is centralizing than requiring a password. Decentralization has nothing to do with it.
You have no clue what you are talking about. You really don't.
Ok, how would 2FA work on "the blockchain"? Keep in mind that the blockchain isn't a computer, it's just blocks of data. It would be the witness nodes (like the one I run) that would do 2FA.
How would this work? Actually try to think about it.
Even if this was possible, it's impractical as hell at best. Would you have to do it for every vote?
An email based 2FA would be even slower.