You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What every user should know about the upcoming change in voting
So how come @biophil thinks 100% votes are going to be worth 8x as much?
The reasoning is that because everyone can only vote 1/8 as much as they could before, then the total amount of P cast should go down to 1/8 of what it was before.
That is not his argument. He isn't talking totals but rather each vote individually. He never says that the total number of votes will decrease eight-fold, that's beside the point. The point is, people will now have the option to make a single vote worth more if they want. This higher-value vote will come at the expense of that individual's voting power.
https://steemit.com/steem-help/@biophil/announcement-all-votes-will-be-up-to-8-times-more-powerful-in-new-hard-fork
Oh, I might as well chime in. @sigmajin and I have been vigorously miscommunicating on that post you linked to. Our misunderstanding boils down to this, which I just realized today: we're measuring the "strength" of a vote by two different measuring sticks. I'm measuring a vote in absolute terms by how much it boosts the
rsharesof a post (the morersharesa post has, the more weight it gets in the reward pool), but he's measuring a vote by how much it boosts the payout of the post. His way of measuring is totally legitimate, and I'm guessing he's right - we probably won't see an 8x increase there. On the night of the hard fork, we almost certainly won't, because everybody's power will shoot up all at once and everybody will cancel each other out. A week later, we'll be back to some sort of equilibrium, and then we'll probably have a significant increase, but possibly not as high as 8x. It just depends on total voter participation; if participation goes up (a good thing), the increase won't be 8x. If it goes down (a bad thing), the increase will actually be more than 8x. It's very difficult to predict.I really really really wanted to argue that his way of measuring is "wrong," but it's not. It's just unpredictable.
Here's the thing about "my way" of measuring it. A couple things actually.
The first is that the whole reason i was in your thread is @shenanigator sent me there. If you read his comments in neds thread, he is unambiguously talking about money, not about rshares. Which, as you note, is suppositious at best.
The second is that if people are saying this: "All votes will be up to 8 times more powerful in new hard fork!" most people are going to assume (just as shennanigator has) that what you're promising is a real money increase in the effect of a 100% vote. If you then go back and say "well rshares game theory hashtag quadratic equation" its going to sound like the owners pulled a fast one.
ANd yes, i realize that you said "up to"...
Yes, I was talking about money. As it turns out, it could be misleading to do so.
I'm more knowledgeable about it now, and I thank you guys for that. It will help me get the most accurate information out there. As I said in a reply above, I still think the money a vote is worth will increase by about 8x, but only after users' voting power is drained. It seems @biophil thinks this could take up to a week for things to run their course and reach the new normal. I believe that it will happen in a couple of days, 3-4 max.
Totally valid point, I'll definitely be more careful about this next time I write about it.
OK, so first things first. Keep in mind that im not a coder, so i can just look at documentation and discussion. Since other sources have confirmed it, ill take your word for it that this is doing what you say its doing. But heres my take and why I wasnt sure to begin with and still have my doubts.
So used.power is like fuel to assign rshares. And vote_regeneration_per_day is like how much gas gets put in your tank every day.
So in the current system, say a 100% vote is like using 1 gallon of vote.power fuel to assign 10 Rshares. What you're saying (which though it might be true, is not clear from documentaion or discussion) is this
This might be true. I certainly can't prove it isnt. But based on what little information i can find in plain english on github, the following scenario could also be true.
Now maybe there is some essential link between consuming used.power that makes it so that consuming a specific amount inherently generates more rshares. But its not obvious to me. In the spirit of full disclosure my interpretation of the change in vote power consumed has been the second thing, so if its really the first at least part of my reasoning was wrong.
You know that I already believe this, but from my reading of the code, I'm 99% sure that it's the first of your two options. I'm sure enough that I'd unhesitatingly bet money on it.
After I had written some of these responses, I thought maybe I should let you speak for yourself. Or at least put a disclaimer that I believe I'm representing your argument accurately, but there's a chance I'm not because you're more knowledgeable about the changes. Please correct me if I misconstrued your argument in any responses.
Thanks for the clarifications here. I also thought that we wouldn't see an 8x boost immediately because most people's voting power will likely be close to 100 on the date of the change. For a few days, I think people will be placing a lot of high-slider-percentage votes which will cancel each other out. Several days after the change goes into effect, I think many people's voting power will be well below 100. At that time, it's my guess that a 100%-slider-vote will be worth about 8x what it was.
No, it was fun to show up here after arguing with sigmajin in my own thread, only to discover this thread and find you arguing my side over here as well. :) From what I can tell you've represented my standpoint well.
No they won't. Once again, this is a fantasy that you made up and that neither you nor BP has provided any documentation whatsoever for, I already explained in the post above why that wouldn't be possible. You can not increase the total amount of P and not decrease the value o f each P. Not with a fixed reward pool.
I really, really do get what youre saying. Youve been spamming the same cooked fantasy all over steemit. It simply ain't so. Basically what youre describing is a system thats the same as the current one, but you can cast 8 100% votes on the same thing.
Again, i think this would be an awesome idea, but its not whats happening. And repeating the lie again and again isnt proof, its just propaganda.
Just going to keep peppering my documentation around. This is the code change:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/6500bb65eb6282866f3c6f356cbcbe09fd03c7bf
One wouldn't be increasing the power of total votes. You would only be enhancing the strength of a single vote at the expense of your future votes
I understand the fictional protocol that you made up. the problem is its not whats on the table.
Even if it were, it wouldnt work, at least not like you think it would. but its not
You made up a fake protocol for voting that not supported by any documentation whatsoever. I can't prove a negative. Your vote at 100% will still be worth the exact same amount of absRshares it was before the change. There is no 8x power vote. Its a complete fantasy.
Produce some documentation for it if you have any (you dont because you made it up) but you can't expect me to prove a negative
You're arguing points neither one of us has made, so that makes me think you don't understand.
You aren't increasing the total amount of P because the voting power decreases accordingly with a higher-powered vote in the new system. Therefore, subsequent votes would be worth less due to significantly reduced voting power.
Yes, once again. I get it. Its just like the current system except you can cast 8X power votes. Thats an awesome idea that exists only in your head and is not documented anywhere except in a never past bed time land. This is where your vote is worth 8X
@sigmajin already knows this, but this is the code, which you can see has now been merged into master: https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/6500bb65eb6282866f3c6f356cbcbe09fd03c7bf
Not to belabor the point, but i do want to make it clear that the quoted text is precisely why @biophil thinks votes will be worth more (in money terms). We get there different ways (and his way is probably more correct, because he understands the mechanics of how steempower translates to rshares translates to money better), but the part of his theory that has people getting 8x more money for an individual vote absolutely, positively depends on 7/8 fewer votes being cast.