If I understood correctly only the curation curve is being modified. So this change would only affect how the curation is distributed but the logic behind how posts are rewarded is intact. Payouts below 20 hive will still be none linear.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's actually something I'm planning to review.
We are taking out the code that is called out as the linear convergent reward curve. This code has a clear impact on curation rewards for small votes (less curation rewards). I reviewed the associated algorithm changes as far as it impacted curation rewards and was involved in the final algorithm selected.
When I asked about impacts on author rewards, I was told there wasn't any (and there's not as far as authors haven't got extra rewards for early votes since HF14), but I plan to double check that it has no impact on author rewards for small votes. Even if does allow for a little more author reward for small votes, I don't think it's likely to cause any problems, but it's good to know all effects of the change.
Yes that is the impact was suggesting. It does impact author rewards (they're increased for small votes).
I do like the idea of getting rid of the extra complexity and buggy sqrt code for something that may not be all that important.
EDIT: I removed the comment I made about the curation curve, since I'm not sure how that will work with the three-piece curation strategy. So I assume someone is working that out.
Is the code change setting the reward curve back to linear or something else?
If it's the former then again it will become more profitable to mine/extract value via comments. Although this would not be the same situation as before (when comment farming was rampant) due to the "free" downvotes. I predict it will be an issue.
The immediate impact of the change will be to increase the curation ROI for the bigger accounts and viceversa. Essentially front-running wont be a "thing" anymore.
Rewards will be strictly linear with total rshares.
I'm not particularly worried about comment farming. Not only can downvotes be employed to counter that, such accounts can also be added to popular mute lists that will likely be subscribed to by "newbies" who might potentially vote on such spam comments.
Yes, the larger impact will be that it ends the use of bots to front run for curation rewards, putting manual voters back on an even footing with the bots.
.
The effects were figured out to the best understanding of the coder doing the work. But he's working on code he didn't write, and the code is difficult to understand and has no comments. In such cases, you don't always know if you've understood the code properly until you write tests to check its functionality.
This is doubly true because the code can simply have errors that make it operate in a way that wasn't even intended. We already found a case of this, where a manually written sqrt function contained a bug. So testing and third-party review of both the code and the test results is important. You can't just stare at the code and be sure you understand it entirely. That kind of "ivory tower" programming is a recipe for disaster.
As to witness voting, I vote for witnesses on different criteria. In abit's case, despite the fact that he devotes most of his time to BitShares, I vote for him because he has more knowledge of the core code than most of the other witnesses. This can be very valuable at times. But note that my vote alone doesn't keep him in the top 20. He's fallen out at various times, and I think he's only on the edge of being in now.
/
As far as I know, he does handle his own witness. You're the only one to claim otherwise, and after some of your previous claims, you probably can understand why I'm doubtful as to their accuracy.
But even if you are correct, and he does hire someone to do his IT work, I don't consider that a big deal. He's the one that is responsible for its operation, his reputation is on the line, and I believe he will act appropriately.
...
The convergent linear curve affects total post value so that's both author and curation.
This is separate from the curation change, at least for the most part (there may be some interaction, not sure).
The plan is that post rewards will be a strict function of total rshares voted (including downvotes, ofc) with the new algorithm.
Yes, understood. That's a change from the convergent linear curve.