On #NewSteem it matters what you vote on. That is Proof-of-Brain working.
Not really. If I vote on something and think it's good.. and the crowd doesn't agree, I am now throwing my vote away.
You have in essence created a system where I will vote only on things that already have votes, regardless of quality. Theoretically anyway..
If no one has voted on it, then there's no incentive to be the first. Well done for creating a hive mind instead of rewarding the individual choice of a steemian. That's not quite a proof of brain so much as a proof of hivemind.
This is what curation rewards, which are boosted in HF21, are for. The first to vote gets the largest share of rewards.
True.. but why you downvoted the comment by @tts in this post? People like me like their service.
Then upvote it, he can do as he wants with his stake just like you can.
Upvoted. But you see, I used my 100% voting power to resurrect it, still it is hidden. @smooth is a whale with over 300k SPs. Bilateral talks are always wise!
Until recently nearly all of my SP was delegated away and my votes were only worth a few thousand SP. I routinely downvoted tts that way too. I'm continuing to do it with undelegated SP because I think its rep is too high but I will likely pull back on vote power at some point.
I saw something posted a while back about a bunch of accounts owned by the same person upvoting that user and funneling funds out of the ecosystem. I have spent no time investigating.. but after that post starting seeing downvotes on @tts. I throw this out there cause it might be influencing people's choices.
I have no strong opinion either way.
Although what they say above.. one vote will mean nothing if it's not followed up.. it's not so much curation but crowdsourced actions.
Sure crowdsourcing a reasonable term for it.
Yes if you vote on something that no one else in the community votes on, then sure it could maybe not go above dust threshold and technically “not count”. But it’s important to remember that proof of brain implies the mind of the crowd. So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all.
Now as someone who curates low rewarded content often, I don’t look at what will get big votes and place my vote accordingly. I vote on what I think adds value, and many times it’s not been found by the crowd yet.. so then my goal is to make it be seen. This way, I’m not the only vote and the author is rewarded.
Essentially this means the community needs to work together, which is a given in a social environment. Lack of tools for content discovery has always made this hard. I know this will be improved in the upcoming communities but until then we can pull together with curation.
You may consider joining the @c-squared curation group - which is open sourcing curation through the community. Then when you find a post you can bring it in and it will be curated by the account (as well as many who look there for posts to vote).
This is a way we can work together to ensure we aren’t the only vote on a good post. Consider it 🙂
https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw
Discord. the real 'back-end' of steem. 😂
Good points though.
I know ... sigh but one day we will not have to go to discord - that’s the dream! 😜
It's the only proof of brain applicable. The crowd does not have a brain. Only individuals do.
Insofar as they do, that is.
Necessitating that votes only count if they are backed by sufficient stake utterly destroys proof of brain. It is in fact proof of wallet, and a large factor in the decline of Steem heretofore, and that which is ensuing presently.
I said nothing about sufficient stake, I said one vote on one post doesn’t really show “consensus” of a shared pool, then I gave an option for how we can work together to make our votes count for more on the content we want to support.
That is what you said, and I disagreed, pointing out that crowds don't have brains, anymore than institutions have rights. Individual people do have rights, brains, and comprise society.
Aiming at society's brain you will miss, because society doesn't have a brain. Proof of brain is limited to individuals. This underlying principle is why consensus isn't ubiquitous, why society is diverse, and why we aren't all going to vote one way.
The important thing about our votes is that they are unique, and derived from our personal values. That is why bots degrade society when allowed to vote. They are the opposite of proof of brain. They are proof of no brain. Proof of wallet.
That has no place in society, and that's what Steem social media is.
Let me say this again in a way that maybe won’t be turned into some sort of physiological look at society and individuals brain power..
Of course a crowd doesn’t have one brain, it has many. This system was designed to be “crowdsourced” proof of brain, therefore one person saying “this adds value” no longer can be the deciding factor, and might I add never happens here.. so what I was saying is that we need to work together, as a crowd (made up of unique individuals with their own brains) to help ensure our votes “count”.
Of course not everyone will agree on one post and we don’t want them too, but that’s not really the point here.. you’re worried about one vote not counting so here’s the solution I have been giving - make sure your one vote isn’t the only one there by taking it to c-squared curation group.. which is open community sourced curation.
As far as the rest, I think this all stems from poor wording in this Steemit Inc. post, and I don’t really feel the need to explain things on their behalf.
The truth is that every social media platform is crowd sourced and so is Steem.. so we can just accept that and work to ensure the good stuff is seen or we can just complain constantly.. you choose, I’ve already made my decision.
'Join the herd. Look at this nice corral!'
The vast majority of Steem was created by ninjaminers, and most of the little created by inflation has been captured by the socks of the ninjaminers thereafter, meaning that Steem was never crowdsourced at all, and if HF21 remains the status quo, it never will be.
Unless you consider ninjaminers the crowd.
We disagree on certain fundamentals, and I am prepared to accept we won't agree. I expect three things to happen as a result of HF21: Steem price will plunge. Market cap will plunge. User retention will plunge. If I'm wrong, those things won't happen. You'll have been proved right.
If they happen, you will have been proved wrong - but it will be too late to do anything about it, because everyone that cares will be gone and unlikely in the extreme to come back.
I have come here to post and engage because my voice is singular, and I reckon I struggle not with the wisdom of the crowd, but the stupidity. You're encouraging people to sublimate themselves into the crowd, and that is simply unacceptable when the crowd is plunging over the cliff.
My way or the highway, eh? Yeah, no. That's not how society works.
It's how society breaks.
Keep twisting those words. I said come together in a manual curation group to help good authors be rewarded, only you could twist that into something bad.
It seems many here only want to complain and do nothing, it’s a free world so please continue. It’s been a couple days though... seems a bit early for the pitchforks.
I didn’t like or support the majority of these changes but will do my best to help them make a positive impact for the community.
If that doesn’t work we can all leave, as we as individuals have the right to do so... even you.
That's all fine in theory, however, if the 'crowd' follows the leader, then the leader decides what is 'good' content and all the rest of the good content not found or voted on by the leader is ignored. By having mindless curation trails, it discourages the individual from discovering content THEY think is valuable content.
I understand that there is no perfect solution and that we do need to group together in order to make progress, but I've personally witnessed certain posters getting a whole lot more attention from curation trails than other posters and that is not a good sign.
Then please go check out the one I’m talking about, as it’s not a trail and no one “leader” decides what’s Voted. It’s open to all and everyone is a curator... it’s crowd sourcing manual curation in the hopes of having an alternative to the very issues you brought up, and it’s why I am suggesting it.
C-squared has no blog... there is nothing there to look at.
Curation is done in an open discord server - https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw
Post voted with account are resteemed on @c-squared. Due to the high volume of those resteems our blogging is done on the @c-cubed account. Sorry I should have clarified that in my comment, I had in another but I understand that is confusing.
Hopefully that helps, let me know if you have questions.
Copied from the blog:
I believe this is a voting trail.
As for Discord... does that belong to Steem? Is Steem a social media platform or simply a promotional tool for other platforms? This is one of the reasons Steem is doing so poorly... it keeps sending people away instead of holding onto them. People should be discussing their vote choices ON the c-cubed or c-squared blog... not on any other platform! Why would you not keep all comments on the Steem blockchain? More comments = higher engagement = bigger community = better for Steem.
Yes, there is a trail there for those who don’t manually curate.. and there are over 500 curators and many channels of curation for those that do .. choices are key there.
Discord is a chat app, as there is no way currently to do these things on a the Steem chain, when there is we will. As I agree we should rely on a third party app... but alas, it is what it is for now 🤷♀️
Curation in the volume we do would not be doable on a “comment in a post”, it just wouldn’t. We use the chain by resteeming the posts, making curation compilations, commenting on the posts and oh yes - rewarding people for engaging on the authors posts as we believe engagement is good for the chain too.
Thanks for the interest, going to get back to curating now...