You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Boycotting Bidbots to Save the Reward Pool is a Fruitless Endeavor.
I think I am going to take this a little higher up the food chain. The truth is this practice of the bidbots is endangering steemit.com and I for one don't like it.
Do as you will man, as far as I know,
it is a technical impossibility to prevent.
It might not be about preventing, but about dealing with it.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, one post I seen was suggesting that content creators be taxed an additional 25% and then giving that SBD to the curators. That solution makes no sense to me, I think it will only cause more problems.
Taxed? So you think that they are currently taxed 25% for curators, so content creators in turn deserve 100% of the rewards?
It really depends on how you look at it. If curators get dinged another 25% that 25% might feel like a tax. The thing with Steemit is, that it's just so unnatural, there are either too many real world comparisons, or not enough adequate ones.
I can see it from many different angles at once. How would you feel about an additional 25% removed from potential post rewards? I don't think that it will solve the problem of bots, but rather make them operate in different ways.
People want the bot owners to curate but if they don't want to, I don't know if trying to force them to will actually work.
It's more like an additional 33%, to make curators on equal ground with content creators, so a change from 1:3 ratio to a 1:1 ratio.
The problem of bots won't ever be solved by some people's standard of "solved", but you're willing to say that bot owners will still rape the reward pool because if you think they will find different ways to do it, to reward pool rape, we might as well stop trying to control them? So it's a giant circular motion, a spinning of the wheels by your perspective to do anything like that?
I have to disagree, and say that content creators will still put out content without any financial incentives, if the vote was purely gestural so to speak, as is almost everywhere else.
Oh, I agree that some content creators will still create even without the financial incentives. Yet, some who've been accustomed to a certain amount of rewards. Lets say someone level 74 averages 35.00 sbd per post and makes four posts a day. If suddenly they got allot less because more was allocated to curators and that fix didn't solve the bot problem, they'd probably be unhappy with the results. It could just end up causing more anger among folks on the platform. I guess if they do something with the code, it's in everyone best interest if they do it right the first time even though we're at like HF 20 or whatever now.
And 20 revision are hardly anything in context of software. It's clearly always in trying things out for the best of the platform and right now that means mass adaptation. The problem is greater than bots, and it's about the utter lack of moderation, as long as there's no moderation people will continue to abuse while others sit on their hands reasoning that "the physics allow it" to a moral dilemma. There's one simple way to script you some anti-bot code: add moderation.
That it exactly @baah . You always slam the hammer down on the nail. lol
Yet steemit.com isn't Steem. Steem is the decentralized network that it present through a front-end.
I did a whole bunch of research and this is actually the truth. Steemit is a subsidiary of the four Corporations that own everything, just like all corporations are. Even the Block Chain.
Nobody owns the blockchain. Steemit is not Steem. The blockchain is owned by the people who either have stake in the network and/or are actually running the network (witnesses). The Block Chain is a concept predating the internet by millennia, ledgers and block chains are the exact same thing, to say someone owns that idea is to seriously mistake what those things mean and why they are adopted.
There is an old saying. He who controls the gold makes the rules. Who owns the gold? Who owns the currency? Who owns the electricity? Why is the U.S fighting over who gets to build a pipeline?
The truth is they can't really control the resources, because they have tied the resources to the currency. That is the mistake that has allowed cryptocurrency. The fighting is a buy some time strategy. Crypto is also a strategy. Time will tell?
It doesn't matter who owns the gold, who owns the electricity or who owns the currency, what matters here is who owns the idea and who controls it, and neither ownership of the tech or control is being secured by gold or anything else you mentioned, the "mistake" that allowed such ideas is the security they come with in the face of counterfeiting and outright stealing or other fraudulent activities, that is why Tally Sticks made such a robust currency and why distributed ledgers will render fraud irrelevant.
Personally I hope you are right. I don't think that people know how deep the fraudulent activities are a part of the system. I know for a fact however that you nor anyone else will get the distributed ledgers inside a court room if they (meaning the agents of fraud) don't' want it in the court room.
Which courtroom, any courtroom? Or the proverbial court room? Why are we discussing that, we were discussing how nobody owns the idea or can control it., weren't we?