Also I am not opposed to this or any experiment. Yet if there is no written defined methodology that everyone follows it is kind of pointless. If you can't get everyone to agree in your target group to try it then that also is pointless. So even if you think Dan is a nut, he up voted my post so I'd say he likely would have been receptive to experimenting. We must all talk with people we disagree with, and when they are one of the founders and people writing the code this is especially true. I've only ever spoken to Dan in replies to my posts, nowhere else, so I have no familiarity with him outside of that environment. I think the RESULTS of this experiment you were trying to do could be important. Yet, I think they need to be done at the code level for a short term period of time so that no one beyond a certain steem power can up vote OR down vote.
Then you would have a true experiment which couldn't be screwed up by people who do not cooperate, and then by unequal steem power accounts attempting to guess the correct % and counteract votes of non-cooperative people in an n^2 environment.
I applaud you for ACTUALLY trying to do something. Yet you need to reach out to people like me and others and build support and we'll back trying to convince dan/ned and others to let a short term experiment happen.
I don't always get on steemit.chat unless I see someone tagged me when I happen to look at my email. I've gotten involved on discord the past two weekends.
I don't have a lot of power, but I can still be an advocate for experimentation.
If it is code based you don't have to worry about people consistently applying the agreed upon methodology anyway.
As is I thought it was only being focused on people with 1 million steem power or more...
Yet I've seen it applied to people lower than that. I have no clue what criteria you guys are actually using.
Thanks for the reply.
Now I'll start ranting..
The reason that do a test before code it, is it's really hard to get some code done as you want, perhaps just my opinion though. You see @dantheman upvoted without a comment. The coding is not hard. The first question is, is this experiment worth coding, as a hard fork or soft fork? The second question, is to reach a consensus. Besides the coding work, if implement it as a soft fork, we need to convince all the witnesses and miners; as a hard fork, we need to convince 17+ witnesses. Lots of communications are needed here.
For the range, actually the n^2 algorithm starts taking effect on a post when total voting weight reaches 800MVest. Or around 400K SP. So that's the first target. When people are piling on same posts, and when there are bots, it's easy to reach that.
Okay that is good information.
So IF me and others can help convince witnesses, talk to Dan, and actually work towards doing something would that be something you'd be interested in? Not saying it can be done. I am testing the waters.
All I know is that experiments with no consensus among the target audience are not really accurate information. Like I said I approve of WHAT you were trying to do. I think it is an experiment that needs to happen. Yet it needs to be something that you don't have to police to make it happen. It needs to be free of outside influences. So that sounds like a soft fork, or hard fork. I'd think something like this would definitely be a soft fork if it is doable, and yeah seems like in code it is likely throwing in an AND statement in a couple places with Steem Power < cutoffpower for whether UP VOTE or DOWN VOTE work or not.
So not tricky code in this case.
Now @dantheman is still voting and @berniesanders started voting again. I guess the experiment is failed already. It won't be coded.
Let's see what we can do. You could be right. I don't mind occasionally trying to tilt at windmills. Bernie Sanders and I do not get along that well. Yet, I get along with pretty much everyone else. Smooth and I have had disagreements but it was with mutual respect and civil, so he and I get along fine.