RE: Steemit creates accounts for scammers... and nobody else?
I expect the underlying problem is not just STINC. I expected the problem to arise in the game theory of a consortium blockchain combined with a flawed rewards model.
I warned the Steem community of this inevitable game theory outcome more than once since 2016:
Blog rewards CAN’T be widely distributed
Who pays for the blogging and curation rewards? (Part 2):
Who Actually Pays
The debasement of SP holders is not a complete picture of who pays, because the game theory for rewards indicates that perhaps hypothetically deviant whales could in theory offset any debasement and increase their share of the money supply. Although I haven’t developed a precise model, it appears that the more SP stake a holder controls, then proportionally some non-linear less debasement. Meaning I posit that the system appears to hypothetically economically favor concentration of the wealth to those who already concentrate the wealth in the deviant scenario.
“Consortium blockchains” (e.g. DPoS & Tendermint) can’t Internet scale
There’s a solution to the game theory problem, but not with the current model. And the vested interests here will never change the existing model.
Actually this problem at the generative essence abstract level is just another power vacuum paradigm. Those who are the most ruthless always win the battle for the void in the power vacuum.
Then your expectations are completely off-base. These accounts are being created at no cost to the exploiters by STINC. The approval of these large bot-nets and the delegated SP given to them comes directly from STINC. These exploiters are exploiting one of the (apparently) automated sign-up systems being run by STINC. They aren't exploiting the blockchain account creation protocols that would otherwise require them to fund the creation of their own bot-nets.
It isn't a blockchain problem. It's an incompetence-inside-the-halls-of-STINC problem...as usual.
Thanks for replying. I appreciate corrections and discussion.
My thesis is at a game theory meta level above the level you are referring to. You are looking at symptoms. I am referring to the root genesis of the problem.
What I am saying is that some vested interests are allowing that to happen and making sure it is allowed to continue to happen. Because of course they are profiting on it anonymously whilst employing their power within the consortium to prevent any fix from occurring.
This is always how the the-powers-that-be operate behind the curtain. This was explained years ago to the DPoS crowd but of course they refuse to listen:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#example-2-delegated-proof-of-stake-dpos
Blaming it on incompetence is also sort of an incompetence. Some folks are feigning incompetence to fool the incompetent who do not look at the game theory of how political vacuums behave in the real world.
If you can somehow pressure them to fix STINC, they’ll come up with another scheme to extract the value out of the system. Because “they” control it. It’s pointless for me to investigate who “they” are, because they will not give up their control. Are they committing a crime?
Remove STINC and the void in the power vacuum will be won by the most ruthless. This is the way politics and democracy always work.
It’s naive or disingenuous to say that a consortium blockchain design has nothing to do with this. It was explained 3 years ago (and even before that) that voting (for witness, rewards, etc) requires rule by oligarchy otherwise it diverges into chaotic disagreement (and Daniel Larimer is frankly incorrect and does not comprehend Byzantine Fault Tolerance):
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/#money-and-politics
I am appreciative of you raising the issue. I even resteemed this blog (first I ever resteemed) to my 1800+ followers. I am also sensitive to the need to have a system which is objective. But for me the outcome is “sigh, don’t people ever learn that politics of voting for a collective is a power vacuum”.
Obviously they are not only gaining SP from the signup bonus but also presumably by using these sockpuppets to upvote groupwise to game the NON-LINEAR rewards system, which is what my aforementioned blog from 2016 predicted would happen. That blog of mine had explained that a linear vote weighting would not be viable. And a non-linear one of course can be gamed by collusion.
P.S. I believe STINC knows the end of Steem isn’t that far from now and they must extract maximum value while they still can.
When you say vacuum, do you mean economic bubble that may pop or are bubbles and vacuums complete opposites and cannot be compared at all, allegorically?
Follow all the links you find in order to understand power vacuums.
THANK YOU!