I liked the n2, too.
Too bad 'the whales' couldn't contain their greed.
Changing the code to suit their greed was just too much, imo.
We downvote self voters and applaud the code being change to favor those with the most.
Smdh.
I liked the n2, too.
Too bad 'the whales' couldn't contain their greed.
Changing the code to suit their greed was just too much, imo.
We downvote self voters and applaud the code being change to favor those with the most.
Smdh.
What exactly is the code change that was made?
Well, there is a long list of them.
I came just before hf16.
It wasn't long after that that stinc set rewards to linear and went on a two year development walkabout, so that their bidbot friends could reap us, then 'they', many of whom are still here and 'in good standing' with the community, sold an undercover poor tax that took more the less you had and topped out at 50%, you'd have to look through the various forks to get more specific details, but there is a long history of self serving changes to the code.
Often just sprung on us with no real notice, nor discussion.
That said, what we have now is nearly friction free, it is much better than what we had when I got here.
Ideally, we would figure out a way to get back to the original design, but unless we could lock down the bots that's not gonna happen.
I think there are few enough of us that we, with a little teamwork, could put the kibosh on the socks and bots, but that isn't a widely held sentiment.
When I first got here, there was a 24hr payout and a 30 day payout.
The order in which you voted on a post was important, you could double or more your curation reward by picking content that was later voted by others.
The more others, the more your reward was multiplied.
All changed because the greedy wouldn't stop, and the more fairly minded didn't have what it would take to force the issue.
Greedy folks gonna greed.™
We forked to put an end to bidbots, then we let them come back but only if people sold their votes wholesale, ie, delegating for profit, or added a second layer token to obfuscate the nature of what was really happening, vote selling.
If I had been a bidbot owner, I would have been bent out of shape over that.
It makes me wonder what the trade off was.
I've posted about much of this, if you care to scroll back that far.
Thanks for the info. I will have a read back to understand more. Appreciate the time and explanation.
Why did I unfollow you? Sorry :(
I love you.
!lol
lolztoken.com
An oughtter.
Credit: reddit
@felixxx, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of antisocialist
(1/4)
Delegate Hive Tokens to Farm $LOLZ and earn 110% Rewards. Learn more.
Pool rewards are a function of r_shares.
They used to be non linear (x^n), then in HF19, they were changed to linear/proportional.
Simplified Example:
Right now my vote is worth 0.90$ - with no regards to how many other people voted the content. It is 0.90$ when I am the only one voting for a post, it is 0.90$ when the post is already sitting at an expected payout of 100$.
Before, it was hard to predict the value of a single vote, because it also mattered, if other votes were active on the post. So just a rough example: 0.20$ when I am the only one voting, but on a 100$ post my vote could be worth 2$.
This would also mean, however, that my downvote on a 100$ post would deduct 2$.
More eyes, more impact.
The problem was, that the whales are lazy and don't like to read, so they all voted on the same post via autovote, which lead to just a few authors getting all the rewards.
But that was a problem with collusion and general ignorance, not the code itself.
I do believe however that only a few posts per day should get rewards, because the average user will only read a handful of posts per day in the real world.
The top content gets by far the most views and should get by far the highest rewards.
bla bla bla I could go on, but this seems too complicated for most people anyways and I am annoyed right now, sorry.
If the software is supposed to interact with people, but does not take human psychology seriously, then the problem is not in laziness, ignorance, collusion or greed. The problem is in the software. It is best studied in game development. When the game offers many ways to achieve goal and the most efficient is also boring, then players will overwhelmingly choose that path and complain about it. The same situation is with rewards on Hive and efficiency of bots.
There are two reward curves. First is how posts compete with each other for reward pool, second determines how curators compete for their share in post payout. First curve was changed to linear in HF19, then to convergent linear in HF21 and then in Hive back to linear in HF25. When it is not linear, it can be set to make popular posts get relatively more rewards (bots will vote for posts from authors historically most popular) or relatively less. Bots can adapt to the curve, because they can be made to observe all posts. Humans can't do that. Therefore nonlinear curve promotes use of bots over manual organic curation. Similar thing with curation reward curve - it was changed to square root in HF19, convergent square root in HF21 and linear in HF25. There is however something else that influences curations - voting windows. Currently it is fairly easy for normal people to achieve the same results as mindless bots (some people would prefer if the first window was wider though). More than that, people have higher chance to know if the topic will be controversial to attract downvotes - maybe AI bots will be able to do that in the future. Manual curators also have one more advantage. If they build considerable group of followers, by attracting votes through reblogs and promotional posts, they can pull late voters to the posts they voted on. Late voters are the source of extra rewards for early curators (they increase value of the post linearly, but their share in curation is slashed). I can't see bots doing that.
And "lazy, greedy" whales have very easy way to get consistent curation rewards - vote for
hbd.funderposts (rewards going to support hbd-stabilizer). You don't need to be a whale to use that method and I also use it when I have too much voting mana before I have to leave for sleep or work. These posts receive hefty rewards day in day out. So, use of bots is not the most efficient in current environment - if you don't feel confident in your ability to curate, it makes more sense to delegate to team of manual curators than to use bot. It makes healthier environment than it was before.This explains a lot.
It's a software that let's people interact with other people, though.
If your design is meant for multiplayer and large maps and the map isn't populated enough, then it won't work. Ever tried SQUAD with only a handful of players on the map?
My complaint was always that there were too few players (whales) so the game-theory regulating mechanics, that could have balanced it, never kicked in. Instead of letting others join the game, they were playing in an almost empty world and then acted like it was a design flaw.
It also always felt like a flaw (and I have talked about that extensively) that you need to vote to get better ROI. There should be a reward for not voting at all. Voting for
hbd.funderwould fix that, but I feel like there is a solution out there that's much more elegant and doesn't involve that hack.I'll have to think a bit more about rewards...
rewards over r_shares are strictly linear.
r_shares aren't, because the pool...
I have an answer, but I can't really form a cohesive text, yet.
I would be interested with what you might come up with.
Yes, an empty landscape is bad for a game, that's right.
The greatest problem of this chain is the bigot moralism of the downvote mafia and norons like antisocialist and many more.
They are destroying as a Part of ceiminal structure around Mark Jeftovic's Hivewatchers valuable content creators.
So this blockchain has no future.
Too much facismn too many idiots and ideology and no entrepreneurship at all.
The philosopy of destruction by illegal acting and lazy stakeholders is destroying the future of this ecosytem.
I'd say, even less.
Who does not like to read, should not give a vote.
True determinability of a text can only be provided by the reader. If "reading" is not something one likes to do and if one is still too lazy to engage with what one has read and is unable to grasp both the strong and weak aspects of a text, the only right thing to do would be to abstain from voting altogether.
The question can therefore be asked of oneself: Have I read a text in its entirety? Do I have something to say about it that is of value to the recipient? What could such a value be?
If I want an author to improve the potential of their expression, then I provide them with constructive criticism. Which presupposes that the writer is interested in such criticism. But if the writer is neither interested in increasing his potential, nor in wanting to refine his writing style, nor is he willing to spend time and energy on an open debate, then all my own interest in constructiveness is wasted.
It looks to me like people online no longer read, but vote on the basis of headlines and snippets of text that happen impulsively rather than thoughtfully. What "the market wants" is more of a distorted form, because it grabs "likes" and "votes", it's a hunt for superficial confirmation, but cares little about the content, yet pretends all the more vehemently that it is about such. What was already true for "yesterday's newspaper" is all the more true for online content.
In this sense, loyalty votes are the worst (I myself am "guilty" of casting them). Even if I like a particular author, I need to treat each and every single blog post as if it's the first one I ever get to read from this particular author. Reading everything as if it was written from someone I do neither know nor sympathize with. I shall be the one who is motivated to act in this manner. I cannot make others to behave like that.
I can only set the most attainable highest standard I can come up with. If I lower my own standard, I compromise myself and, as a consequence, I am an unfortunate role model to others.
I could reply to this, and I could maybe convince you of my solutions.
It would take me hours.
I am on some different time, since I wrote the above, though.
Just this one as food for thought:
I disagree. Context matters.
That is how when I post a picture of my food nobody cares, but if Kim Kardashian does, millions of people are interested.
Right, context matters, I see it the same way. I approach it differently, though.
There's a scene in Game of Thrones where Varys (the eunuch) stands in front of Daenerys Targaryen and she demands unconditional loyalty from him. He replies to her something like: "If you want unquestioning loyalty when you might opt for something that goes against everything I have chosen to stand for, then I will contradict you and refuse my service."
Is not every situation in which someone presents you with something potentially like a new blank page and you can decide whether what is on this new page deserves your support or not? Is this not actually something you prefer?
For me, loyalty does not mean that someone always says "yes" to me, quite to the contrary, it is that they can say "no" when I utter something idiotic or plan something stupid or perform under my standard.
Personally, I couldn't care less what's on K.K.'s plate. But sure, if everyone wants to be like Kardashian (or whoever is currently trendy), let them try.
For a start, we could do questions and answers. I wouldn't want you to take hours ;)
This is exactly why I am not going into further details.
what do you mean by that?
!BEER
View or trade
BEER.Hey @ghs06, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @indextrader24 for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.View or trade
BEER.Hey @ghs06, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @janasilver for you. Enjoy it!If you like BEER and want to support us please consider voting @louis.witness on HIVE and on HIVE Engine.
!BEER