You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How would you like your post rewards flagged away, some posts even down to 0$? Is this the Steemit you support? Campaign to stop the abuse of berniesanders
Vote negation is a horrible idea
All the solutions you propose are convoluted. Vote negation is the most straightforward, stake-for-stake equal way to deal with abusive voting. In a stakeholder governance system everything will ultimately come down to how much stake is abusive and how much stake is willing to counter that abuse. Vote negation removes all other costs associated with policing abuse. And abuse of vote negation can be policed exactly as easily as abusive votes by the same method.
Convoluted because they have more to it than simply vest-vs-vest? I don't see that as a valid reason to not implement something, simply because it requires more variables to implement... I read about vote negation after thinking Dan's idea would be great. As I understood it, anyone could apply their vests to cancel out others. They don't even need to know when someone posts or run a bot, the vote negation would just do it automatically lol. So I wouldn't be in any better boat. Can you explain how vote negation would be the solution to flags? Does it involve gaining support from high vested users to counter someone's flag votes? So if you're just a poster, you can still get flagged unless you have high SP support. Please help me out on how this would work as a solution. Thanks.
The problem with policing abusive voting right now is that it involves many extraneous costs. Partially social costs (collateral damage because we only vote on posts, not votes), a lot of attention and bandwidth on the network.
The costliness of policing discourages even those with the inventive to do so proactively. In practice only those things that can be discouraged with reputational damage gets policed (petty stuff like plagiarism). It favours the abuser because the costs are disproportionately carried by the policer. Remember that in the early days Dan and Ned did police abusive voting, but it involved far more time than they could spend, and they took lots of flak due to collateral damage.
If someone negates your vote, all it takes off someone else delegating you the same amount of stake to counter it. Costs in attention, blockchain resources and collateral damage are eliminated. As long as a stakeholder is willing to intervene, abuse is easily countered on a stake against stake basis. The largest stakeholders do have an incentive to intervene in abuse that undermines the value of the network.