You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Meet Steem's #1 Author!
I agree with Alexvan here, when you see something wrong happening you should do something about it and not use it to defame someone else for your own good.
I agree with Alexvan here, when you see something wrong happening you should do something about it and not use it to defame someone else for your own good.
Actually I think he is doing something. He makes members aware of an intrinsic problem of the platform, which is a first important step of thinking about it and finding solutions. I don't think single users are to blame 'morally' to exploit a system if the system allows it. So it is not the point if @mindhunter or @tamim act 'morally' wrong or not.
But in my eyes it is obvious that extensive self-voting, comment voting and other (completely legal!) 'tricks' can be dangerous for Steemit in the long run. If only a few are doing that, the system will handle it, but if more and more users are getting aware, that self-voting (without writing long, elaborated articles or communicating with other members) is the most easy and effective way to make profit here, then more and more people will do exactly that (they have the right to do it actually). The consequences will be less communication between users, low quality articles, frustration of newbies, and of course a low Steem price. So even if extensive self-voting may lead to some short term profit in the long rung it should be counterproductive.
As I don't blame single users like @tamim or @mindhunter (as I said, people will always 'game' an exploitable system - and by the way I also upvote my articles and some comments), I think we should try to improve the system, so that it will be at least more difficult to exploit it.
Actually all recent changes made it more easy to upvote oneself:
Actually all these changes also have their advantages but combined they favor self-voting a lot. Therefore I think we should collect ideas to minimize the effect of extensive self-voting and similar methods. I also haven't found any really good solution so far, but at least some ideas:
(These ideas may be inappropriate - I hope you will find much better ones! :) )
Maybe @jerrybanfield's article was not completely altruistic, but in my opinion he pointed out a real problem about which we should ponder to find suitable solutions.
I note there are other problems that stem from the same cause, which is weighting VP with SP. Perhaps the worst problems faced by Steemit is that this weighting scheme makes a Sybil attack on Steemit able to control the code trivial (all you need is enough money to buy enough witness votes), and PROFITABLE to those from whom the Steem would need to be purchased (all of the largest holdings of Steem were mined, before Steemit even existed), and the fact that weighting VP with SP makes Steem a security in the eyes of the SEC.
While the SEC has yet to set (publicly) it's sights on Steem, I am pretty sure it will, sooner or later.
I have posted on the only solution I can see to all the problems this weighting scheme causes, including exactly this rewards pool mining scheme @jerrybanfield points out in this post, and that is changing how VP is weighted. That is the only way to change how the SEC will consider whether Steem is a security, for example.
I have done my best to advocate for solving these problems. It seems to me that those who are either minnows and eager to be able to take advantage of these same design 'features' (vectors for attack) don't want it to change, and those unable to understand it is a problem, and those presently being advantaged financially by it (particularly those that mined their stakes, who are millionaires on paper), are manufacturing opposition to fixing the problem, for the reasons listed above.
Because of this I do not expect Steemit to fix the problem(s), and therefore the price of Steem is likely to continue to languish, rather than rise to reflect the potential of the platform to overtake Fakebook, and the capital gains that would inure to those who have invested in Steem to fail to materialize.
Fortunately, Steem is open source, and I know that at least one fork of Steemit is being written as we speak that intends to a) do away with the mined stakes, and b) weight VP with reputation in order to solve these problems. I am sure Calibrae will not be the last fork either, so if it doesn't succeed in solving these problems, another will arise, and another, until the lessons learned from each failure finally produce a platform that will kill Fakebook.
I personally am not focused on financial rewards from Steemit, although I am on Steemit because it offers them, and offering them has created a community the discourages trolling, and encourages polite discourse - a fantastic boon to social media platforms.
At first I thought Steemit was a fair and brilliant platform capable of growing to the point of leaving Fakebook in the dustbin of history, but after I read the white paper, and had conversations with witnesses, devs, and profiteers, I realized it cannot do so without changing how VP is weighted.
I could be wrong about whether Steemit will make the necessary changes to weighting VP, but I highly doubt it.
We shall see what the future brings.
The more I learn about how Steemit works right now, the more it becomes clear that the system is much too easily manipulated by people who can invest from the outside with fiat to get voting power. There must be a formula to figure out how much $ to invest X number of accounts to reach a sweet spot in voting power that can then be used make sufficient profit to justify the time spent - if you just vote for yourself.
That is very much not in keeping with what I understand the spirit of Steemit to be. I am very curious what the fork you mentioned will bring. I agree that reputation should be more heavily weighted in determining voting power, not financial value. Financial power = voting power is what made the world we live in what it is, and it is being replicated on a much much smaller scale here.
Clearly, you get it.
I agree that there is a break point where it is simply too profitable to self vote to bother with curation anymore - although some whales still do so. That they do is strong evidence of their personal dedication to Steemit, and one of the things that gives me hope, and causes me to continue to rail at those will listen, and try to advocate for changes that i think are necessary to prevent Steemit from suffering fatal injury.
I have posted on such topics before.
There is no fate, but what we make...
Sarah Connor
We seem to fighting a loosing battle against lobbies everywhere, in every single aspect of our lives...
And now we also have to fight BOTs on the dark side.
Sometimes I wish for the rise of google, so the battle becomes fairer...
Battle is never fair, nor victory just. Nonetheless, we shall either be free men, or the war shall have been lost.
Not all company is good, and only good company will meet the victory of liberty haply. We must consider carefully our allies, that we not be led astray.
Google has certainly arisen to an extent that every matter we must treat involves it, and whether it is allied against us, or with us, time and truth will tell.
I was just pointing out that he was trying to talk himself as the actual top earner, because the others are faulty and have issues, like comment voting, but he does the same, votes his own comments. If some low minnow will do upvote his own comment for a longer time he would be blasted by some other whale.
He bought his witness rank from the top whales, just check the blocks with the SBD sent to top whales. Now he can start implementig solutions on github, but no, we needed all to know what a top witness earns and how @tamim or @mindhunter cheat the system. By the way, @tamim did not post anything in the past 9 days, only resteemed.
Like said, the approach was what got me to post the comment. Don't try to appear clean and shift the blame on others, admit your faults and flaws, come with a solution and let's discuss it. Just throwing a blame in a room will not bring us forward.
Steemit has flaws, of course, some can be solved, some maybe not, the real witness are working hard on it, and deserve to be paid for their effort.
I see that your comment was writen in a constructive manner, which I appreciate, and most of the things I have to agree upon. I hope you take my comments also in a constructive way.
No, I will flag it with 100 %! ;-)
Thank you Sir :))
you guys are right.. it is bad for steemit and I didnt feel very good about it as a minnow.. while I do my best to create valuable content someone who has enough SP earns just with one image or meaningless comment.. it wont be that bad if the posts were good.. steemit shouldnt allow this and it is bad when someone sees steemit just as a way to get money...
Because their are advantages to current 'problems', perhaps the right solution is do what the steem white paper suggests, in its crab parable. Let the big boys take down the big boys who rise too quickly or 'cheat'.
In other words, first warn the abuser and ask his motivation, then publish this abuse and last of all 'take them down' kindly. Once they are 'tackled' as in football, do not keep kicking them. Chances are they have something to offer, even if it is just demonstrating system weaknesses.
HF19 has been well, perhaps this is strong, a disaster.
Sooner or later the most elaborated post will always get the best rewards. Self voting won't hurt the community
I disagree. Just check accounts like the one of @tamim or also @sandrino. They make huge rewards by upvoting their own posts again and again. For example @sandrino just overtook me in the SteemWhales list by doing nothing but upvoting his own posts.
As long as not too many users follow these examples, it won't hurt the platform too much, but if more and more members recognize how lucrative it is under the current conditions, it actually could be the end of Steemit.
If the gaming is allowed, unfettered, sooner or later, that will be inevitable result - everybody just gaming for up votes, which will kill it, like you say.
I don't see the ethical stance changing, which is whats is needed, before implementing any changes.
And certainly not from the current big players?- why would they? - its the game they want.
What is the process for actual change on steem? How are ideas implemented into the actual code and who does it? Have changes been made before?
The last thing a charlatan would want you to do is call them out while they are performing. This is precisely what Jerry has done. It doesn't matter if he serves to benefit or not, what matters is that there are people exploiting Steemit, and the public deserves to know about it.
Defaming people who have done immoral acts is the moral thing to do. If you don't, then they are free to continue. The only reason I can see for wanting to protect the immoral in this way is if you are one of them. Defending your own by any chance Elias?
silentwrath i guess you can look at my profile and find that i'm not, and i think Jerry also said that they are smart to have a strategy and that he should've had a better one. so...