RE: 25 Reasons Steem Will Replace Bitcoin as #1 Cryptocurrency by 2021!
I am motivated by seeing that others are thinking this way about design requirements.
I am totally against the presence of bots On steemit Platform. It’s a social media platform, and social means human to human interaction ; not human to bot ; or bot to bot , as steemit has become.
I believe the way to mitigate the negative impact of bots and sockpuppets is a radical reformulation of a reward and content ranking system. I will not offer my design right now though, although I have already linked to my point about getting rid of one-size-fits-all rankings (meaning not every user would see the same ranking for the same blog, comment, video, etc). Others may be contemplating new designs also.
1. There should not be any time limit on receiving rewards.
That is accomplished in my design.
2. There should be strictly one account per person.
I posit that the change to the reward and rankings which I contemplate, wouldn’t need to require that restriction in order to mitigate deleterious impacts on the community. It should economically motivate people to normally operate from one identifiable account, unless there is a game theory for their circumstances that benefits them to dilute their followers across multiple identities that still wouldn’t be deleterious.
3. There should not be any bots or AI on the platform.
This can’t be entirely controlled in an open network. For example it is impossible to design a game that prevents bots from playing (I looked into this because one of my original ideas was to reward tokens based on playing a game or measuring real activity and I learned it can always be gamed by bots). But the economic incentives can be such that bots are doing non-deleterious activities. This comes back to the point of the reward system not being a Prisoner’s dilemma so that it’s not maximally profitable to defect significantly from optimum outcomes for the community as a whole.
4. There should be 2 types of searches: one through the tags (as on steemit) and another advanced search that scans the entire content to match the words or phrases ( as in google)
Full text search is resource intensive. Google has 1000s of servers. This can be done of course if we can monetize it. It probably means users will have to pay a minuscule transaction fee per full text search (perhaps 10,000 searches per penny). If we otherwise charge everyone collectively for the full text searches (as in how Steem/DPoS charges everyone for the “free” transaction fees by minting rewards for witnesses and nodes from the collective money supply) then it may become a searching spam attack vector. I actually haven’t thought about this engineering issue yet, and am just speaking off-the-cuff.
NEWS FLASH (for those who might not know this): nothing in life is free, not even Steem’s “free” transaction fees. Facebook is not free, you have given them control over your data and allowed them to subject you to advertising. When we try to “give away for free what is not free”1, then we create power vacuums with deleterious, top-down control outcomes.
Note we collectively can give rewards for desirable activity. The essence of the challenge is objectivity and transparency of the metrics. The problem with the upvoting paradigm as currently structured in Steem is that there’s no way to make it objective and transparent. Therefor it defaults to a power vacuum, which means winner-take-all top-down control.
If you incorporate the above suggestions in your social media, I am sure it will be way ahead of Steemit.
Prepare for your mind to be blown. Your requests are quite tame. 😁
I would like to join
Ty. Actually I was trying not to mention vaporware but then I realized that if I didn’t add the Disclaimer I would be remiss. And I also took offense to Jerry’s overconfidence that nothing can compete with Steem, but I let myself get carried away a bit. Now I feel not good talking about a project which is not released. So please let me go back into hiding for a while so I don’t embarrass myself with useless words. No comment on ETA.
1 I first read (c.f. also) this aphorism from Jason Hommel aka @jasonhommel.
Good luck 👍
I am inviting everyone to feedback on a naming a new project which will attempt to fix these problems.
As much as I may like the idea of "one account per person," I would not at all like the only way to enforce such a thing. Accounts would have to be linked to peoples id's or passports or some such which would totally ruin any prospect of remaining anonymous, which in turn would lead to self censorship, which in turn would lead to a boring, non thought provoking, stall environment.
I could certainly see the benefits of having multiple account/personas in game theory. If one wanted to write a certain type of thing they could use one, where if they also wanted to make music, which may not cater to or possibly even "turn off" those interested of the literature, one could create a different persona.
I would have no problem, with micro transactions. In fact I would encourage them if it was to limit the rampant spread of spam and annoying bots. If your paying a 1000th or even a 100th of a penny for a service, that's no skin off my back but it is to the spammers.
The ledger doesn’t have to enforce it. I have no plans to put any code in a ledger that forces everyone to identify themselves and maintain only one account. It should always be an optional choice. However, the governments may force the people do it.
Indeed, that is what I had alluded to.
And that transaction fee should be a 1000th or less in a properly designed, sharded validation ledger. Note that sharded validation is normally insecure, but I have posited solution. Note also my reply to @codypanama.