RE: Downvote Pool Deep Dive
First no single entity has any feduciary responsibility for the blockchain, everyone is either holding stake or isn't, those with stake cannot be said to have such a role over the blockchain but what can be suggested is that in safeguarding their stake/investment they are incentivized to maintain such a role, although indirectly. I wouldn't call it 'let's try it and see what happens' but frankly that is exactly how science of all manners is conducted. The hypothesis is clear: free downvotes will lead to people using the downvotes to combat abuse and encourage self policing, we are trying to see what free downvotes would do and why they would work is very sound and well reasoned: at the moment it make no sense for individuals to spend their resources on fighting abuse when they could focus them on endlessly more rewarding things.
Flag wars, much like self voting cannot be countered through code changes. This has been considered probably from before steem was even a solid idea and AFAIK there has not been any code changes that were suggested that weren't mere hurdles and caused negative behavior to be more obscure and thus harder to detect and that much more difficult to combat.
We don't have any evidence because we have no experience, to gain experience we must try things, we might brake them but we will always learn, regardless if it's a poor decision or a good one, but if we don't try, if we don't take the leap, we won't know.
Posted using Partiko Android
This is objectively false. Flags can just be omitted via code. Votes altogether can just be omitted via code.
Code is infinitely immutable, and good code can fix every problem bad code creates.
Unfortunately, we're throwing more bad code after bad code, and the problems we already suffer are going to get worse as soon as these code changes are implemented. Incentive to imbue Steem with value isn't effected via extant code, and the tweaks discussed are just going to make that worse, and that's all because the devs either aren't experienced investors, or aren't interested in imbuing Steem with value.
Code currently encourages stakeholders to strip value from Steem by extracting rewards via unlimited upvotes, delegation, etc. Code can change that.
But it won't, because profiteers were encouraged to profit, and presently control the lion's share of stake, and they don't want to change the status quo. Every time disruption occurs, it costs stakeholders profiting from extant conditions.
After these tweaks are implemented and things get worse, feel free to comment to me regarding my comments that that is what will happen. Don't think you will, but feel free to.
When I said that flag wars cannot be countered through code I wasn't being obtuse and saying you can't remove flag altogether but that in having flag you are going to have people abuse them. You're being obtuse because the issue is in how to counter flag wars through code and still have flags, as is clearly implied.
There's no such thing as good code like you want us to believe, or bad code. You won't explain why it will make it worse, so we can dismiss it as easily as you want to assert it.
Code do not encourage people to strip value, stop asserting the exact same nonsense that I have called you out on numerous times and which you failed or refused to address EVERY FUCKING TIME.
Posted using Partiko Android
You're fucking delusional.
Gravity is why water flows downhill, and code is why people vote the way they do. Code is infinitely mutable, and can be changed, unlike gravity. I'd try to cogently explain how this can be done, but you won't even acknowledge any points I make. I know this because I've attempted to engage with you previously, and that is what you did.
Have a nice day.
Bullshit and lies. You never explained you only assert nonsense, not once did you Reason or explain, and here you are trying to say that "code is why people vote the way they do" and we are discussing not why or how people vote but exactly what code is bad, and why and how it is so, and you tried to avoid it AGAIN and make it seem like you have any idea about it when you don't and if you did you didn't bother to explain it even once. Fucking nonsense.
Posted using Partiko Android
Here before an overwhelming majority prove my delusion, it should be a challenge anyone would gladly accept IMO, why do I have the sneaking suspicion that all that will happen is silent acquiescence to the fact that you're a bullshit liar or the one in delusion?
Posted using Partiko Android
https://partiko.app/@kevinwong/feeling-good-about-steem-again-here-s-my-side-of-the-story
There you are again assertion nonsense and thinking that your proposal is sound in the least, you had again nothing to say when both I and Kevin pointed out the obvious flaws but you still persist, as if. I confronted you two or three times previously and once you got defensive because I called you Nonsense, NON-Sense and accused me completely mistakenly of attacking your character. Gtfo. The next time you had nothing or didn't want to say anything, when I asked you repeatedly why would people invest or power up rewards. Your proposal is SHIT. It has no economic sense, it's nonsense, it confuses things and asserts head shaking... BRACE YOURSELF :
NOFUCKTARDSENSE
EXACTLY LIKE IN THE THREAD ABOVE.
See, you are an idiot :) poor chap!!! @baah
How nice of your troll self to offer me some fake pity after you thoroughly failed at trolling me. Troll on brother, if you don't, who will?!
The collective body that's deciding which version of code to run has a fiduciary responsibility. To some extent, that includes everyone, but in reality, it's a relatively small group of people.
You can't know with certainty what will happen without trying it, but you can gain an increased level of confidence by doing formal analysis of the change, and developing research-backed theories that are more reliable than our intuitions. You can also increase your level of confidence by running simulations.
Where is the evidence for this? If self-voting can't be countered through code changes, there's no point in implementing the change. As suggested in item (iii), however, I suspect that they actually can be mitigated by realigning the voting incentives.
They don't have any such responsibility, what they are responsible for is running the nodes/servers and updating the price feed (ugh), all else is a matter of desire not of necessity.
I don't understand what you want me to provide since you seem to want me to demonstrate a negative proof. There have been a lot of suggestions and, much like your 2nd price action, they weren't considered fully in how a bad actor would overcome them. In the end, they all have one common thread: tax/burden the community and obfuscate undesirable behavior, unwittingly. You seem to think that by splitting stake up to jump over the hurdle is making abuse more obvious, but frankly I don't know how you can reason that, how it's easier to link multiple accounts together in a scheme than to simply recognize one abusive account.
Again, the way to realign incentives is not through Law but the enforcement of law, likewise, the flag enforces the law of "thou shall not voturbate" because implementing any such law is only at the expense of everyone who doesn't abuse self voting and it barely can be considered a hurdle to those determined to do the least for the most.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't want you to provide anything, and I'm not the one that needs to be convinced. I'm content with either decision. I'm saying that the people who decide which version of code to run should demand more than an intuitive demonstration that the change will make things better.
What does better mean? In curation, "better" means that it is more likely to rank a set of posts in the correct order, according to user preferences. So, it seems to me that the witnesses who will run the code should ask whoever is proposing the change to provide some level of evidence that the post ranking after the change is likely to be more correct (closer to matching user preferences) than post ranking before the change.
Your argument seems self-contradictory. On one hand, you say that the rules don't matter - and we need to just depend on curators to downvote, but you're making that argument in support of a rule change. If we can't solve the problem of incorrect ranking of posts by changing the rules of the game, then why are we having this conversation at all?
They aren't asking for any demonstration because there is no testing or scoring for such a demonstration, the only way to get data, the. Only. Way. Is to try it.
Curation isn't what you make it out to be by far, it's another word for saying review / rate. That's it. It's not about correct or incorrect ordering, it's about "I rate this as x dollars". After all let's not kid ourselves that we are curators at a natural history museum or the like...
What this proposal is about is not "fixing curation" but incentivizing policing the network, making it not profitable to self vote, bid bot, or circle jerk, make it cost little to nothing to counter plagiarism / fraud etc..
You're asking for some level of evidence that this proposal is going to make users more likely to rank a set of posts in a correct order but the preposterous notion isn't only that this proposal is not about that or that there aren't any metrics to measure "a correct order to user preference" (kinda oxymoron, as preference and correct are contradictory ideas, one is objective t/f and binary correct or incorrect, the other is subjective and variable) but that there isn't any place or system that could be used to determine that besides steem.
My argument is not that rules don't matter, I'm saying that having rules without enforcement is redundant, and putting it into code only burdens everyone, much like your suggestion, while those that seek the least amount of work for the most profit will exploit it either way, if they have to go around the obstacles you place they will. By allowing people to enforce rules that needent be even expressed or explained but are simply "unwritten" (ie George Carlin's unwritten rules of the road) then you don't have to deal with figuring out exactly who is who as they are going around your obstacles. I hope it makes sense, I'm sure there are others who could better explain the conundrum.
Posted using Partiko Android
The point of a content curation system is to produce a ranked list of content. Yes, from the voter's perspective, it's just "I rank this as x dollars", but a good content curation system will aggregate all of those individual decisions into an ordered set that approximates the actual combined preferences of the users so that readers can quickly find things of interest.
In that context, it is possible to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a particular voting scheme before injecting it into the blockchain.
You should read A Puff of Steem: Security Analysis of Decentralized Content Curation. There is much to learn, and it suggests several techniques by which the strengths and weakness of any proposal might be quantified before slapping it into the running block chain.
It's very simple to calculate. What is the Median power of an average voter? What is the power of a community vote? Of a bid-bot? Of a whale?
Case closed :D
There's no system or place to analyze that. It's preposterous to think that this could be tested anywhere but in the real world.
Posted using Partiko Android
The fallacy in your logic is that you believe everyone will have the same definition of "abuse".
No, I never said anything about 'everyone has the same definition' of shit so try again, person who thinks that booing and jeering or thumbs down/ downvoting is not free expression and thinks that censorship is downvoting not curation (despite the that it is explicitly referred to as curation in the post). Muh Strawman.
Exactly. You never said it. That's my point. No strawman here. Just facts.
Posted using Partiko Android
So your pointing out a fallacy "I believe" which coincidentally I never even implied let alone expressed and you didn't think it's a strawman, especially when it isn't relevant or a valid contention to what my position was..
#nonsequitur
Posted using Partiko Android
I would prefer having dislikes and likes and upvotes but not financial downvotes or flags.
Then people would just self vote.
If Steemit chooses to continue having flags and downvotes, could they at least choose not to hide flagged posts? I know hidden posts can be revealed. But I don't enjoy clicking on the reveal button to see hidden posts from people, including you. I saw that people flagged your comments. So, I click on show, on reveal, on unhide, to read flagged comments of yours. I understand why flagged posts are hidden, and I understand the thinking behind that system, but I would prefer flagged posts not being hidden. I have heard that Steemit has like a reverse-auction system or whatever you want to call the upvoting / pool / cryptocurrency / blockchain system. So, I understand the philosophy or theory behind how flags can help in that system a whole lot or maybe just a bit.
Why? I enjoy, really do, being 'hidden', and if you understand why they are hidden but would prefer otherwise you can use both partiko and busy.org to see the otherwise hidden items.
Posted using Partiko Android
I understand why things are hidden but I disagree with that way of thinking.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.