You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Announcement: All votes will be up to 8 times more powerful in new hard fork!
This is an outright lie. I just hope users remember in the future that you helped provide propaganda for taking away their vote.
Its based on the absolutely false notion that 8x fewer votes (i guess 1/8, 8x fewer sounds weird) will be cast after the hardfork than before it.
Oh, you are fun. :) I'll reply to you, but don't worry - I won't get into a flamefest with you like that other guy you tried to burn down. And anyway, I'm not really writing this for you - it's for the next person who comes along and thinks you might be right. Don't worry, kind stranger - @sigmajin is mistaken, but I think I understand why and I'll try to explain this carefully so you don't fall into the same trap. This is why:
Today, if your voting power is P, and you cast a vote, your vote is worth about P/200. After the hard fork, if you cast a vote and your voting power is P, your vote will be worth about P/25. That's where the factor of 8 comes from; 200/25=8.
Now, today, if you vote 40 times per day, your voting power should hover just slightly under 100. So each of your votes is worth about 0.5. After the hard fork, if you vote 40 times per day, your voting power will hover just under 12.5, so each of your votes is worth, wait for it, 12.5/25=0.5. I suspect this is why @sigmajin is confused, because he thinks it's worse to have 12.5 voting power than 100. But 12.5 under the new rules is exactly the same as 100 under the old rules, because a full-power vote is worth the same amount.
Here's where the new rules become very powerful: Suppose you actually want your voting power to be at 100, because you don't like 12.5; but you still want to cast 40 votes per day. You can do that! Simply cast every vote at 12.5% slider power! Then your vote will have the same power that it would have had if your account power level were at 12.5. Why would anyone go to the trouble to put the voting power slider at 12.5 every time? Because now, you have the option to cast a vote that's worth 4 (=100/25) by putting the slider to 100, which is 8x more than the 0.5 your vote would have been worth under the old rules.
Now that I've shown you that nobody loses, you can rest easy. @sigmajin, I'm really not inclined to answer any more of your attacks because I've seen the kind of mess that gets people into.
INcidentally, just as a side note i do completely understand the fictional scenario youre making up. You want to convince people that in the new system voting at 100% will be just like casting a vote at full strength 8 times on the same thing in the current system.
Thats a nice fantasy, (and something that i think it would be great to implement) but its just that. A fantasy.
When I show you the commits in which the above are implemented, will that suffice for you to pay me the $400?
I like that, and it's about what I expected. As soon as you find out I have code to prove that I'm not making this up, you rescind the offer of $400.
I apologize, I had not noticed this reply earlier, and would not have rescinded my offer of a bet if I had.
WHen I rescinded my offer, I assumed you had not responded to it yet at all. Because you replied to my proffer, I will honor my initial offer of a bet, as stated.
No, to me the code is not sufficient, because I am not an expert in coding. I would be curious to see what in the code you have to support your thesis, but the bet i offered stands on its original terms (which do not strike me as unreasonable. after all, if you wish to prove a single vote is worth 8x more, the best way to do so is to cast that vote once before and once after).
EDIT: is it this?
https://github.com/steemit/steem/commit/6500bb65eb6282866f3c6f356cbcbe09fd03c7bf
Also, since you're so fond of analysing my history, i should probably note that I have made precisely one bet on this platform. It was with @bacchist. We decided to allow @smooth to settle it.
Even though smooth called the bet a draw, after looking at the explanation provided, i decided to pay @bacchist anyway, because it seemed to me that he had been correct. So no, me backing out of a bet is not what one would expect.
As I said in the other thread, I spent 8 years as a professional gambler. I don't freeroll people and I respect the gamble.
Thank you for re-offering me your bet. I'm going to reject it as-is, even at the risk of making myself look like a spineless weasel. I may propose a slight change to your bet; see what you think about it below. For what it's worth, it's a very well-designed bet, in that it's helped me to refine exactly what I believe is going to happen next Tuesday. It has also helped me see that you and I are thinking about this in subtly different ways, and that I've been miscommunicating to you (and, I'm afraid, possibly to others as well). I'll tell you precisely why I'm not taking your bet in a minute. After the following wall of text:
The commits you linked to are were exactly I was talking about. If you analyze the code, you'll see that I wasn't actually talking out of my ass! The situation I'm describing is exactly how it's implemented in those commits.
Now, why I'm not taking your bet. Sorry if I belabor this; I'm not trying to talk down to you, I'm just trying to be precise. There are two ways to describe the "strength" of a vote. The first (I'll call this "my way") is to measure how much your vote changes the
rsharesof the post you voted on. The morersharesa post has, the more rewards it gets. The impact of votes is objective, it's algorithmic, it's predictable, it depends on nothing but the code. My scenarios that I've provided all my math for are describing this way of measuring vote strength.The second way to describe the strength of a vote (I'll call this "your way") is to measure the change a vote has on a post's payout. This is a totally legitimate way to describe vote strength, but it's not easy to predict because it depends on how everybody else is voting. Here's why I might not win the bet: when the hard fork goes into effect, suddenly everybody's votes will be 8 times more powerful (measuring "my way"), and we end up where you've been saying we'll end up all along: if everybody is 8x more powerful, then everybody cancels each other out and voila - nobody is more powerful. However, I believe this effect will be short-lived. After everybody has put a huge initial drain on their voting power, we probably will go back to pre-hardfork-ish levels of voting participation. But this is very difficult for me to predict.
But wait! Before you say "aha, the fool has conceded!" I'm thinking about offering you the bet with this slight modification: we take your original bet, and postpone the second vote until 1 week after the hard fork. So we compare my 100% power vote the day before the hard fork with my 100% power vote 1 week after the hard fork, after the system has had time to go back to equilibrium. We can adjust for any increase in SP that I've had over the week, just to make sure that you don't think I'm trying to rig it. What would you think about that? I'm not ready to commit to this yet because I still need to think it through, but I thought I'd mention it while we're talking.
TBH, i think it will very likely end up as a wash. Note that we'll have to adjust the weight by steem value and by SP, and the SP thing is kind of weird. But yeah ill still take it...
hah i had not seen that. If you look at the threads he was talking about, his math was in fact, wrong. Lying to people about how much their SP is going to be debased is a bad thing, IMO.
The same as lying to people about how much their vote is going to be worth. The numbers you made up are just that -- numbers youre making up. Just like time eventually told with anonymint and his bogus numbers, it will also tell when this hardfork goes through and all the extra vote power youre promising people never materializes.
Are you going to blame it on a typo, like anonymint did?
Where is my error?
Your error is that you made the quote below up. Its completely fictional and based on how you think others are going to vote. Its not documented anywhere, provable anywhere or in any code you can present. Its part of your imagination.
Its based on the notion, which is completely untrue or at the very least completely unproven, that the total P cast by all users is going to decrease by 7/8.
EDIT: AORN bet has not been accepted so im rescinding. I need to do some maths first.
Whats your vote worth right now at 100%. 1.something cents? I'll make a bet with you. For every cent your 100% vote is worth after the hard fork above a nickle, ill give you 100 bucks. for every cent below a nickle, you give me a hundred bucks. I lost my last bet so this should be easy money, right? Thats $400 you make if youre completely right.
EDIT: actually, we would have use a sample from right before the hard fork and right after, so price of steem wouldnt have an impact on cash value.
I would like to know more about your reasoning here. @biophil seems to present a sound analysis of this, if there's any logical error I can't spot it. In order for voting targets to decrease from 40 votes per day to 5, then voting power has to decrease 8x faster than it does now. As an experiment I tried voting twice in a row with near 100% voting power and then checking the decrease in my voting power each time. Although it's not exact, the decrease did seem to be roughly 0.5%. I'm not trying to be critical of anybody here, I just honestly want to understand what the flaw in this reasoning is, if there is one.
you can read about my reasoning here:
https://steemit.com/steem/@sigmajin/what-every-user-should-know-about-the-upcoming-change-in-voting