Having spoken directly to the Curangel people, they made it clear that they don't want to provide any reasons and actually that they pride themselves on not being reasonable.
Correction: You only downvote content that causes you cognitive dissonance, and give precisely 0 fucks about "the blockchain" or anything else besides your pocket book, and your dogmatic authoritarian ideology.
It's obvious that you do care, your cognitive dissonance is stirring, because you keep lashing out with more and more down-votes, more holier-than-thou attitude, and more sarcastically rude comments.
I take responsibility for my life, my actions, my words, my reality - that's the beauty of finding freedom & sovereignty. I don't have to lash out at others, throw around my "weight" to feel big, make threats against people over the internet, or otherwise try to exert control on those around me - because I'm confident in my own Self.
I also don't have a fragile ego or any self-worth issues for your attempts at mockery to trigger.
Keep digging the hole you're standing in though, by all means.
The main issue is that DV is not necessary at all. If it is then it needs to be better clarified in the Whitepaper.
III.1. Delegated Proof of Stake Pg.5
Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) is the consensus algorithm behind Hive. In a DPoS algorithm, the selection of block producers (called ’witnesses’ on Hive) and all other consensus-based functions are decided based on the weight of staked funds supporting them. Stakeholders hold the highest prominence in DPoS. DPoS consensus is considered to be the most inclusive and the least centralized of all the blockchain protocols.2 DPoS was first invented by Dan Larimer as a functional alternative to the Proof of Work system introduced with Bitcoin. Other prominent DPoS blockchains include BitShares and EOS; they are originally based on Larimer’s Graphene framework.
V.5. Content Monetization pg.8 During that time it may be curated upwards or downwards through upvotes and downvotes until its final value is determined at the end of the 7 day...
V.6. Distributing Rewards Pg.9 When a user submits a post it initiates a 7 day curation window during which it may be upvoted or downvoted until its final evaluation is reached at the end of 7 days.
I think downvoting does have its uses, like to 'hide' hate speech or some kind of blatant political extremism. Even disagreement with rewards. The tune of 200$ on a well put together post though? Not sure that was necessary. Hurts getting hit like that. And since I showed my happy face over here, I've been put on 'their' radar and already being targeted. Is what it is. See what happens when somebody says something? Just saying. Least I got a reason though 😂
Seems like you might be more open to applying downvoting equally to all aspects of DPoS Staked voting consensus. I personally think the way the whitepaper was written only protects the witnesses ranking, the proposals they want to pass or influence others proposals. I do not want to assume it was intentional but I do feel it is up to us to better clarify or apply DPoS in a more fair way as the Whitepaper is very clear about how DPoS applies to witness voting and proposals and defines the processes but it is not clear why downvoting was only applied to content.
Ya I would, there are several 'proposals' being passed I think are total bullshit and if I could 'downvote' them, I would. I don't even understand how they are even up there. The 'stabilizers' aren't having any real effect as HBD has not stayed pegged. I mean, the whole point of adjusting payouts via HIVE/HP/HBD is what keeps it there. $2k+ *still a week for keychain? I mean, now you're just paying them to do nothing because there have been no updates to it in a couple months. Not that it even needs any (I love keychain btw) and there are a few others that make no sense. Is what it is though. I can talk 'til I'm blue in the face, but I don't quite have the HP to back it all up (yet).
Interesting then I encourage you write a proposal to include consensus voting for witnesses and proposals, I will support no doubt and you have stronger community support than I. Truly, that was plan B for me if this did not gain traction. Still yet most important objective for this proposal was bring awareness and provide a workable solution that would encourage a stronger and more cohesive community for Hive.
Education, timing and awareness is key. I do not expect this to get passed at all but already has way more votes than expected. I think it is time for change to start to happen in regards to taking ownership as a community or at least letting them know we can make proposals to better our institution that is built upon this Whitepaper and make a more fair DPoS future/foundation to build upon. Proposals are not just for money! Rock Rock Planet Rock, I want my planet Back!
I personally don't think that is a smart thing to do. Whales are healthy for the system. When you apply Downvotes to a DPoS system to one out of three aspects I have to wonder who wrote the whitepaper in a way to prevent downvotes on witnesses and proposals.
A simple elimination of the words
or downwards and downvote in the whitepaper will allow for everyone to live together peacefully
There is no reason in the world that will make them accept, if you ever try downvoting people for disagreement of rewards and leave a comment explaining it most will result in endless discussions about everything. Downvotes are already not rewarding for the downvoter, I doubt people will want to on top of that spend countless hours debating them. Trust me, I've had my fair share of endless discussions and then having literal morons follow me around attacking and calling me all sorts of things for doing so.
Figured I'd give you another reason than the usual "well why are all the autovoters not stating a reason why they are voting up said content".
Just hurts the feels is all. I think the autovoting though, is more of a trust issue built over time. Everyone I have in there, I'm pretty sure is going to put out at least a decent post worth somebody's time and so I am not ashamed to help them grow. I scroll through the votes and see who posted what, and it really is a time saver for me and my little community efforts. 😉
Not everyone takes care of their autovotes well, especially if it's delegated or posting keys they give someone else control over it's way easier to abuse when said whales are AFK.
haha, sly one. I think some constructive criticism while downvoting can always help to ease the conflict/tension. I hate the "disagreement on rewards" stance though, since you are saying content is overrated without giving a concrete reason. Also value can be quite subjective.
On the other hand I can understand why having the same discussion over and over again can be tiresome. The convos are always the same when I look into the comments of a downvote war. I also don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to truthers vs "non-truthers", but I would prefer if these wars are won with arguments instead of 'whose friends have the bigger wallet?'.
Having spoken directly to the Curangel people, they made it clear that they don't want to provide any reasons and actually that they pride themselves on not being reasonable.
Was there any reason given to 3 near $100 upvotes?
I just downvoted a over rewarded post of yours. My reason is "disagreement on rewards". I am also DV this comment as I don't think it's worth $6.
How about the entirety of trending? Those posts are 200 to 400 usd.
Will we see you downvoting those?
I only have a limited account size, and I often drain my entire DV mana. So I have a limited ability but with your help it will be slightly better :)
Consider helping myself and smooth and a few others out, we are the minority
Correction: You only downvote content that causes you cognitive dissonance, and give precisely 0 fucks about "the blockchain" or anything else besides your pocket book, and your dogmatic authoritarian ideology.
I don’t care about your corrections or your opinions. I am not in charge of your emotional intelligence or health :)
It's obvious that you do care, your cognitive dissonance is stirring, because you keep lashing out with more and more down-votes, more holier-than-thou attitude, and more sarcastically rude comments.
I take responsibility for my life, my actions, my words, my reality - that's the beauty of finding freedom & sovereignty. I don't have to lash out at others, throw around my "weight" to feel big, make threats against people over the internet, or otherwise try to exert control on those around me - because I'm confident in my own Self.
I also don't have a fragile ego or any self-worth issues for your attempts at mockery to trigger.
Keep digging the hole you're standing in though, by all means.
Wow, you're a fucking clown.
Bottle of Sam Adams on trending says we aren't having a good time over here LOLz🤣 thanks for the explanation.
Not my beer of choice :)
Craft or local beer only :)
And I saw that too.
Just started trying local craft beers, my wife even picked up a growler 😁
Excellent! I hope you never go back to Sam Adams :)
The main issue is that DV is not necessary at all. If it is then it needs to be better clarified in the Whitepaper.
https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
Only two sentences for explanation of downwards voting.
Why is there only downvoting on posts? Why not add it to witness voting and proposals as well or just eliminate it from Hive all together.
Why not craft a proposal on this @ura-soul?
Also should we mention EOS and Bitshares as prominent or at all in our whitepaper?
I think downvoting does have its uses, like to 'hide' hate speech or some kind of blatant political extremism. Even disagreement with rewards. The tune of 200$ on a well put together post though? Not sure that was necessary. Hurts getting hit like that. And since I showed my happy face over here, I've been put on 'their' radar and already being targeted. Is what it is. See what happens when somebody says something? Just saying. Least I got a reason though 😂
Seems like you might be more open to applying downvoting equally to all aspects of DPoS Staked voting consensus. I personally think the way the whitepaper was written only protects the witnesses ranking, the proposals they want to pass or influence others proposals. I do not want to assume it was intentional but I do feel it is up to us to better clarify or apply DPoS in a more fair way as the Whitepaper is very clear about how DPoS applies to witness voting and proposals and defines the processes but it is not clear why downvoting was only applied to content.
Ya I would, there are several 'proposals' being passed I think are total bullshit and if I could 'downvote' them, I would. I don't even understand how they are even up there. The 'stabilizers' aren't having any real effect as HBD has not stayed pegged. I mean, the whole point of adjusting payouts via HIVE/HP/HBD is what keeps it there. $2k+ *still a week for keychain? I mean, now you're just paying them to do nothing because there have been no updates to it in a couple months. Not that it even needs any (I love keychain btw) and there are a few others that make no sense. Is what it is though. I can talk 'til I'm blue in the face, but I don't quite have the HP to back it all up (yet).
Interesting then I encourage you write a proposal to include consensus voting for witnesses and proposals, I will support no doubt and you have stronger community support than I. Truly, that was plan B for me if this did not gain traction. Still yet most important objective for this proposal was bring awareness and provide a workable solution that would encourage a stronger and more cohesive community for Hive.
I was asking for downvotes on witnesses in 2017, but nobody listened to me.
The way I see it, it will take enough people to come here and change the culture, otherwise attrition will slowly win.
Education, timing and awareness is key. I do not expect this to get passed at all but already has way more votes than expected. I think it is time for change to start to happen in regards to taking ownership as a community or at least letting them know we can make proposals to better our institution that is built upon this Whitepaper and make a more fair DPoS future/foundation to build upon. Proposals are not just for money! Rock Rock Planet Rock, I want my planet Back!
I personally don't think that is a smart thing to do. Whales are healthy for the system. When you apply Downvotes to a DPoS system to one out of three aspects I have to wonder who wrote the whitepaper in a way to prevent downvotes on witnesses and proposals.
A simple elimination of the words
or downwards and downvote in the whitepaper will allow for everyone to live together peacefully
If anyone can get a proposal passed to eliminate the DVs from posts you are certainly one of them. @enginewitty
https://peakd.com/hive-110786/@dynamicsteemians/the-hive-whitepaper-and-updating-the-dpos-protocols-for-downvoting-with-a-community-proposal
There is no reason in the world that will make them accept, if you ever try downvoting people for disagreement of rewards and leave a comment explaining it most will result in endless discussions about everything. Downvotes are already not rewarding for the downvoter, I doubt people will want to on top of that spend countless hours debating them. Trust me, I've had my fair share of endless discussions and then having literal morons follow me around attacking and calling me all sorts of things for doing so.
Figured I'd give you another reason than the usual "well why are all the autovoters not stating a reason why they are voting up said content".
Just hurts the feels is all. I think the autovoting though, is more of a trust issue built over time. Everyone I have in there, I'm pretty sure is going to put out at least a decent post worth somebody's time and so I am not ashamed to help them grow. I scroll through the votes and see who posted what, and it really is a time saver for me and my little community efforts. 😉
Not everyone takes care of their autovotes well, especially if it's delegated or posting keys they give someone else control over it's way easier to abuse when said whales are AFK.
Agreed.
My reason for DV'ing this comment is disagreement on rewards.
haha, sly one. I think some constructive criticism while downvoting can always help to ease the conflict/tension. I hate the "disagreement on rewards" stance though, since you are saying content is overrated without giving a concrete reason. Also value can be quite subjective.
On the other hand I can understand why having the same discussion over and over again can be tiresome. The convos are always the same when I look into the comments of a downvote war. I also don't really have a horse in the race when it comes to truthers vs "non-truthers", but I would prefer if these wars are won with arguments instead of 'whose friends have the bigger wallet?'.