RE: Consensus exists only in equalitarian groups, where everybody has the same rights to express their will by influence and be influenced by all the others
Not equal in wealth. You have your wealth more than others, great. The stock goes up, your investment is worth more. But the influence in the system, who gets to choose who gets visible and rewarded is shared across everyone who is a human and active in the community. Not sure this works out, but that's the idea I am working on.
I agree with what you say.
But right now I can't post things without getting flagged if you upvote, while you can upvote other content and there is no issue. So I don't have much power player support, so nothing I can post can get rewarded beyond a certain point without the bad players deciding it's not allowed to get rewarded.
The white paper suggests there are good whales that counteract the bad whales, but that doesn't seem to happen. The concentration of power is an issue. How to resolve this? I see decentralization of power as the solution. And I'm trying to figure out how to achieve this.
Thank you for the feedback. Can we chat so you can dispel my false understanding, and why stake based concentration of power to reward content is how it must be? Please email me at [email protected] if you would like to. Thanks.
Agree. The idea is that good whales will step in to protect their investment but doesn't seem to be happening unless I'm mistaken.
The problem has been identified and a solution (vote cancelation / negation) has been put forth to balance the system. The problem isn't that good whales won't set up, it is that some of the louder members of the community have convinced a large number of people that it will create more problems.
What is worse, many people consider the "good guys" to be the "bad guys" just because they happen to be founders. This in turn has lead to a demand that the founders remain "neutral" and ultimately that cedes power to others who step up to fill the power vacuums.
It is a pity that some (most?) think the founders should be neutral and not use their stake, presumably because "picking a side" is inherently bad for some reason. I think it doesn't stand up. It strikes me that one of the biggest problems with that is that you then have a substantial SP stake doing very little.
People begin to have a problem with power when it is perceived to be used against them. Really it does all come down to the misinterpretation of down votes, which unfortunately has to be laid at the feet of steemit.com
If the founders had used their stake more wisely people wouldn't ask them to be neutral.
Wasn't it the good whales that voted up the post in the first place?
The good whales voted up their own posts in the first place?
No, the post that got flagged because it was making too much. It was the good whales that made it worth something in the first place.
Yes, upvoting from the "good whales" counteracted the "bad whales" already.
Interesting point, not saying it necessarily is... but could it be due to the dozen or so 'rant' posts recently?
What's a rant post? Talking about the issue? Right...
Oh no I'm not putting a label on it. Just the way you described it a few days back.
https://steemit.com/technology/@krnel/dna-computing-could-blow-quantum-computing-away
Still got flagged...