You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem 0.14.1 Released - Hardfork Postponed until 9/20/2016
So why did you opted to disable a good change when all you had to do is explain the change better? Actually people have done that that explanation for your already [see biophil's post , I am sure others have done too]
Always fun to show up and find myself being discussed. My abbreviated 2 cents: I was looking forward to the change, but saying "you can now spend 8x more voting power per vote" (which is a correct statement of the proposed changes, and what I've been saying all along) is subtly different from saying "your vote will be worth 8x more" (see the discussions between myself and @sigmajin). I think the changes would have ultimately been good, but there's nothing urgent about them and I think there's no harm in having more discussion and analysis before a change is made.
Biophils post was misleading, IMO. This change would have hurt the voting power of active curators and getting rid of it was a good idea.
A lot of people tried to spin the "explanation" of this change to convince everyone that their votes would b e 8x stronger -- this explanation was suppositious at best.
Your understanding of the change is also lacking.
There are good reasons for the change, but explaining it and getting community buy in would take longer than a week. We also didn't want to put witnesses in the uncomfortable position of having a controversial change bundled in with so many other obvious and non-contraversial changes.
I respectfully disagree @dantheman. @sigmajin's explanation was clear, largely if not entirely accurate, and reasonably complete. He covered the issue of automated voting in an accurate manner, which is to say that changes of this nature can not differentiate between automated voting and non-automated users who invest time and effort into active curation. To shift influence away from one with this parameter change unavoidably means also shifting influence away from the other.
If I were to find fault in his analysis, it would be failing to consider changes in behavior, but I do not find this extended analysis likely to help support the change. Both humans and bots may respond to the change by voting less often using the same total vote power, and instead spending the rest of their time at the beach, or on Facebook (or wherever it is that bots go for time away from Steemit). I fail to see how this voluntarily-reduced engagement would be beneficial in any significant way.
Nevertheless that is indeed a separate issue from the process of how or if these changes get made. The decision to pull it out of the release containing other useful improvements was a good one and I support that.
I think i understand the effect pretty clearly, though i really don't get the programming internals, because i don't know how to code. If there's something im missing, I am certainly always eager to learn.
Many of the witnesses upvoted my post about the effect of the proposed voting changes in .14... while that doesn't necessarily signal agreement, in the absence of explicit criticism it seems to signal the acknowledgement of at least a basic, rudimentary comprehension on my part.
@james-show If you read the discussion between me and @biophil, he even admits that his post would be misleading to those thinking of vote strength in terms of money, which is the way other posters like sheninagator were characterizing it.
Phil and I even ended up agreeing on the general potential effects later on in my post about the change.
If its the one about concentrating voting power (potentially even as far as one a day), i agree with you to an extent. But what you don't mention (idk if you get it or not) is that if you started with, say, 40 votes worth $1 each, concentrating them all to 1 vote day would not yield one $40 vote. At least not necessarily. It would yield a vote worth more than 1 dollar and less than 40. Where on the scale it would fall would be largely dependent on other poeples' voting habits, which are difficult to anticipate.
@james-show when you say
This is true. And, iiuc, if you vote this way, your 30 votes will be exactly the same in terms of how many Rshares they are worth. IN fact, you don't even have to set the slider, as your vote power will eventually just hit that equilibrium.
However, in terms of real money those percentage adjusted votes will not be the same as they were. Those 12.5% votes will not be worth the same as your 100% votes used to be. They will be worth less. How much less depends on the voting habits of the other people in the system and is difficult to anticipate.
So yes, everything you're saying about adjusting your vote percentage and nothing changing is true, if youre talking about Rshares. If you're talking about post payout, then not so much (at least not necessarily).
this is one of biophils comments on my earlier posts on the subject.
You for sure do not understand the change if you think:
or that there was in any way shape or form any 'spinning' in his explanation
And I am not talking about you "understanding the exact way it is coded", I mean his explanation is exact and mathematically correct.... but then again I think 1 vote/day target or even 0.5 votes (per current explanation) is beneficial for any and all curators (more so for the smaller ones)...
I am answering to you here @sigmajin because of the max depth.
Now, I would have explain it differently than biohil. I do not know if it would have been more easy to grasp for the people that do not get it from his explanation...if you are interested here is a short version of my explanation . [I did not bother writing it in full article, as I 99.99% of the time I end up with less reward than my time is worth.]
If you want to curate just as you do now:
Divide 5 by the # of votes you do now (per day); Use the result as a% vote weight. So say you cast 30 votes/day now; 5/30= 0.167 or 16.7%. In the new system cast your votes at 16.7% wight.
I can see some potential benefits as well as some possible problems. My initial understanding of it was at least a little off, but after some discussion and debates on Steemit, I think I now have a reasonably sound handle on it. I'm looking forward to a further explanation from you regarding the proposed change.
Yeah, I've been looking forward to this voting power change ever since I read about it. It's disappointing that such an obviously beneficial change is being rejected, even by the very people who it's going to help the most.
I've actually told friends this week to wait and sign up for steemit after this fork because it's going to be so much better for new minnows... I'm probably going to tell them to wait longer now. That's ok... I'm sure it will change eventually.