@sircork,

Because the witnesses, like me, and the others, whom all regularly speak to each other, already know you cannot eliminate them. It's a technical impossibility.

A number of Witnesses, and Whales whose stake-weighted vote guarantees their place as Top Witnesses, themselves run and/or are prolific users of bidbots. There's a self-serving conflict of interest in them suggesting that they "can't be banned."

SO try to figure out which witnesses dont use or support or OPERATE bots, and you'll quickly find that these people you are vehemently fighting for are using them, despite you.

You make my point.

In any event, computer code is not the only way to solve a problem. And hence, my Sheriff and Jury proposal. You see, what computers can't do, but humans can ... is "exercise discretion."

So, when cheaters engage in some new obfuscated scheme to game-the-reward-pool, the Sheriff can write a report, saying: "Here's a new cheating technique. I recommend it be added to The Rules of Conduct."

The Jurors, reviewing the Dossier submitted by a Sheriff can examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions, not restrained by the limitations of code, regarding guilt or innocence, and the appropriate sanction if found guilty. The idea is to raise the stakes of cheating, in whatever form, making it dramatically less enticing.

Will it catch everyone 100% of the time?

Of course not. That's why we have crime in the real world despite the existence of police forces. Nevertheless, it will dramatically reduce the amount of cheating. As I explained elsewhere, a 1 lb problem is preferable to a 100 lb problem.

... you'd already know that prior to bid bots, votes were just sold direct. Via chat, dm, wallet memo, whatever.

As I explained, the system will never be perfect. Make it better by making cheating harder. Automation makes it easier. Moreover, my proposal entails the Sheriffs coming up with new methods for detecting new methods of cheating.

THAT is how representative democracy works. And currently bots exist because a segment of the community wants them. They democratically, via market pressure and resistance, created a component in the free market YOU don't like.

Spare me the lectures on how democracy and free markets work. As I explained to your partner, anarcho-andrei, demand exists in a segment of society for crack cocaine, murder-for-hire and thermonuclear weapons. That doesn't mean you meet the demand. Your definition of "free market" is reflected in your political ideology: Anarchism ... a synonym for chaos. Most of the rest of us want order and your characterization of such as dictatorship, communism and fascism as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Quill

When reading comments on this article, be informed that: @Noblewitness is a partnership between: @sircork, @gmuxx, @rhondak and @anarcho-andrei