You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Joining in on the self voting on comments fray...
This is a really candid comment, thank you for it. I feel similarly. I would be really up for disabling self voting. The stated purpose of the network is to let the best stuff (as collectively decided by voting) to bubble up and be rewarded. Self voting does not work towards that, I think it's clear.
I think the question is, what's the lesser of the two evils? Self voting as it stands today or people creating multiple accounts and cluttering all of that to achieve the same goal? Cliques are also an issue. Let's say there's 3 people each with $10 per upvote. Person A can always upvote B and C. B can always upvote A and C, and C can always upvote A and B. They keep doing it because the others do. It doesn't have to be a meeting in a dark room for this to occur. These sorts of things happen naturally in the eco system because if you notice someone just upvoted the crap out of your post, you're fairly likely to return the favor (if they deserve it hopefully). The thing I hold dear is that I want each account I see to be an actual person.. just 1 person for 1 account. I don't want to have to wonder how many other accounts everyone has. That makes the whole project lose credibility in my eyes more than self upvoting. What do you think?
I don't think we need to decide which is the lesser, we should just deal with them as we can. Self voting can be entirely removed by disabling it on a blockchain level.
In the meantime as we campaign for this, we are making a bot to "tap people on the shoulder" about this issue with small flag for self votes on comments only (announcement here and here). For normal posts, we decided it wouldn't be fair to do that since it's the default steemit.com interface behavior, so I opened a change ticket for that, hopefully it's accepted.
As for multiple accounts, they can be useful, for bots or organizations, etc. I do not agree with 1 person 1 account. But for self voting, I don't know it's probably a serious issue. I think that because you have to split your stake between multiple accounts to do that it will never be as effective as using just one account, so not as bad as self voting. But to really solve it I don't know.
I do think that just because it is now known the first one should still be solved, we needn't choose between them.
Very good points and honestly I think I agree after reading your reply. I also just realized how awesome bots can be as you could literally as a community member make a bot that did that, right? Replied to self voters on comments? I wonder what the back lash would be lol. For instance, some people upvote themselves on comments just enough to be at the top of the list. Not 100%. Maybe just $0.10 worth.
For sure. We are not going to have the bot comment because you do you open the bot up to flagging itself. Just a little pinch of a flag instead to get the point across.
It wouldn't work, if A was not allowed to vote for A, A could vote for B, where B is another account. That would be an endeavor to filter out who's dumping all their Vests on what account, especially if there's a C, D, E, F, and G etc. that a person has.
The point is that if vests are split between accounts they are necessarily small by virtue of being split.
No, nothing is split among the accounts, they simply vote with their full power from one account, numerous other accounts, (that are theirs). I'm saying there is a very simple way to bypass that, more than likely forcing people to make new accounts and vote on them with their old one, or as it was said, delegate the power to a new account and vote on the old one. Either way it doesn't solve anything besides not allowing you to vote yourself, which will make it interesting when someone flags you.
It is impossible in a decentralized system to limit account creation, except as it is currently limited by time, and/or funding requirements on Steemit.
At least I can think of no mechanism that might do so. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, however, and suspect brighter eyes than mine carefully looking at the issue might well find better ways.
I think the conversation is about other limits instead of account creation, like limits for creating content on the blockchain, curating and possibly flagging as opposed to curating (upvote/downvote).
It's a very hard conversation because people intrinsically see limits as counter to freedom, especially when you start talking about pegging account to a metric which dictates what they can and can't do with on the blockchain.
I think it's necessary we look into that direction, limits over how much we can post and the frequency are already built in, we can build in other limits such as a metric that determines if you can create content, if you can curate content, and if you can flag content. That way policing the community doesn't resolve around the pseudo flagging/hidden we have, but actually revoking people's privileges to interact at the blockchain, just as in real life we have certain givens, so on the blockchain we can have certain givens, one being to create content, yet it can also be removed were that person to spam, or plagiarize, especially if it's exclusively what they do, so if the community decides that person A is not a responsible curator, they could have a say over a metric which has a value that determines if an account can or cannot curate.
That's fresh thinking on the matter, and exactly what I meant when I said someone else besides me might have ideas I couldn't come up with. I am aware that, in principle, the economic constraints on Steemit that cause new accounts to need to be delegated Steem in order to make posting possible, are mechanisms that might potentiate such limits as you discuss.
I'm not sure of details, but that may be the right way to handle spam and plagiarism. At least it's an avenue that has potential.