You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposing Steem Equality 0.19.0 as the Next Fork
I actually think a "mega" vote makes it less likely self-voters would hide. When we consider attacks such as these we often ask ourselves what we would do to pull it off.
So, what would I do to pull off a self voting attack with linear rewards? I would make sock puppets that would post and vote on each other. I would post a lot so that I could spread out my stake without the posts ever getting paid enough to draw attention. I would never want to have large payouts but I would slowly siphon off the reward fund. Frankly, I wouldn't care how large someone's vote would be because I would probably not vote with full weight anyways.
If you have an attack that does rely on larger votes, I am eager to hear it!
The attack is to sign on for five minutes, make your 4 votes, and then sign off. In doing so you parasitically dilute the contribution of those who actually care enough to participate more meaningfully.
This comment has been very enlightening.
Currently if an author wants to give all power to himself he will have to selfvote 200+ posts per day but with the "mega vote" anyone can just write a few posts and give 100% of the power to himself. It's going to be more visible but it's also going to be a lot more legitimate and easy to upvote yourself.
Why would someone upvote other people when he can write just a few posts and give all the money to himself instead? The only thing that would prevent this behavior is curation rewards unfortunately most users don't care about curation rewards.
But this is visible and will likely be downvoted. Smaller payouts on more posts is not as visible and less likely to be the target of downvotes.
While I am a fan of letting people increase the % power of their votes, I do see @someonewhoisme 's point.
You say it will be more visible and likely downvoted... but by who? Who is going to police how often people are posting/upvoting themselves and decide how much is too much?
If a medium sized person were to use all their voting power to only vote for their own posts, minnow flags would have no effect and you would have to find people with larger stakes and convince them to use a similarly large portion of their voting power to cancel it out.
While you are correct, minnow downvotes will also have a larger impact (because of linear rewards) and the whale voting experiment shows that large players are willing to forgo their rewards for the betterment of the platform.
Are you a steem developer @vandeberg?
You can't expect people to act in certain ways especially when there is little incentives for them to do so.
I proposed a few month ago to create a moderator/investor class https://steemit.com/steem/@snowflake/guardian-of-the-steem-universe-a-different-perspective-on-the-role-of-whales-within-steem-ecosystem-part-2
.
This is necessary to align incentives with everyone and create a balanced ecosystem.
Users in the investor class could be the guardian of the platform and could be encouraged to moderate. But don't expect people to moderate out of the goodness of their own heart, it's not going to happen. @smooth and @abit are the exception to the rule.
@fingolfin also made a good point below. Users are not going to go around police each other and downvote self-voted posts.
I guess I am just saying this could be another example of not completely being able to forecast how this would work in reality. You say it will be likely downvoted, but do you currently know how many posts get downvoted or why?
Other than pure flag wars between people and the current whale experiment, I would say most of the flags I see come from people like steemcleaners in an attempt to fight abuse. I'm not sure self voting would really fall into the abuse category and your average user isn't going to check the authors voting history and the % power of those votes when they read a random post.
How will the average user know that random author John Smith only upvotes his own posts at the max % allowed? Even if you did a little digging on every author of every post you read, how much upvoting yourself is too much? Using 90% of your voting power on yourself? 80, 70, 60.. where do you draw a line that says this cant stand and I should downvote it?
I agree. People are not going to waste their voting power to downvote self-voters, it's not going to happen unless they have real incentives to do so.
Like you said there is no way to determine if the self-voters deserve a downvote, this is going to create a very toxic environnement if people start to downvote left , right and center.