You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Steemit Enhancement Proposal - Extend The Voting Period Over 30 Days By Implementing A "Hosting" Fee

in #steemit • 8 years ago

It's a great proposal. I'll bring up the four concerns that I am aware of though:

  1. If the posts can be voted on, they need to be held in memory by the witnesses and steem nodes. The more content that needs to be held in memory, the more expensive it will be for witnesses and other entities to run servers to power the blockchain. The new more efficient graphene blockchain that they are planning to roll out may help to address this issue though.
  2. The rewards pool is a fixed amount of money to pay out, which has to be divided across all the posts that are receiving payment. If older posts are receiving large payments, that is less money to go to the 24/h and 30/d posts.
  3. At least currently, most posts are not getting any attention after the first 24 hour payment period. I assume the # of posts that would get significant upvotes after 30 days would be even less than that.
  4. Users are only supposed to be able to vote on a post once. If you vote on a post in the 24 hour period, it won't let you vote on it again in the 30 day period. This is for obvious reasons. If we allowed voting indefinitely, malicious whales would be able to exploit the system by voting on "puppet" posts, then powering down and powering up a new account, then voting on them again. They could in theory milk a historic post for new rewards indefinitely if nobody noticed what they were doing. (I saw this brought up by @smooth in regards to the shorter power down they are proposing - which would make this even easier to do.)

Assuming they can find ways to address these items, I think what you are proposing would be a great way to implement it!

8 years ago in #steemit by
$0.00
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    Thanks @timcliff, appreciate the time taken to peruse this. I'll take them one at a time.

    1. Technically speaking, is very doable. They can keep only the reference to the post in memory and the actual post on a separate storage, strongly linked by some keys. I don't see any reason to keep blog posts in the blockchain (maybe just to show that you can). I see reasons to keep smart contracts in the blockchain, but blog posts aren't smart contracts. Also, by taking out the actual content from the blockchain and keeping only references, I expect the storage needs will be 100x times less.
    2. In this scenario, the reward pool si constantly enlarged by the contribution of people who are paying to have their posts votable. So it will actually be more and more money on the table.
    3. I tend to disagree. Long-tail is a significant source of revenue for many bloggers.
    4. This is already happening, there are cohorts of bots voting. My proposal suggests to have rewards only for authors, not for curators, as it is right now after the 24 hours period. It makes sense to pay for curation if you discover content, but when the content is old, you don't have to pay for curation, you only reward the content with your vote.

    So it's kinda simper. What's your take?

    [-]
     8 years ago 
    1. The blockchain code is not my area of expertise, so I don't really know if what you are suggesting is viable. There is a discussion going on in this GitHub issue with the developers that are working on a solution. You could offer your suggestion there: https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/339
    2. If people are making a lot from historic posts, then in order for them not to be a drain on the reward pool, more money would need to be taken in by the "people who are paying to have their posts votable". I don't know if the fees would cover the rewards. If they did, then one could argue it probably wouldn't be worth it for the authors, since that would mean they are paying more in fees than they were getting in rewards.
    3. Fair point. With the current viewing/voting patterns of the users older posts are not getting much attention, but that could change.
    4. True, there are already ways that users can game the system. This would just open up another attack vector that the community would need to consider.
    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago 
      1. Thanks for the link on github, I knew about that discussion, I will open a new issue.
      2. That's exactly the idea, people will become very conscious about what they can make by having their posts votable and it will very soon become self-regulating. I think that a relatively small percentage of users will have their posts votable over 30 days, but that will still be significant. I did a few simulations yesterday, it looks interesting.
      3. :)
      4. Yes, implementation should be as tight as possible. But as I see it right now, it's quite ok.

      Thanks for the contribution to the debate, again.

      Coin Marketplace

      STEEM 0.16
      TRX 0.16
      JST 0.031
      BTC 59559.24
      ETH 2523.49
      USDT 1.00
      SBD 2.42