Anyone who's been here for more than a few weeks knows that proof-of-brain is a fantasy created as a marketing ploy to attract new users. This platform is proof-of-stake, and it will never be anything close to proof-of-brain without massive organization and restructuring.
True test of POB
If you were the best blogger in the world how long should it take you to ascend the ranks of Steem and start receiving the biggest portion of the reward pool? The answer is simple: instantly. The mechanics in place to find stellar content and upvote it to the top should work without any kind of need to build up a network of supporters. Of course, this is extremely idealistic and even unreasonable, but it's still a goal to aim for, just like POB itself. It's a moving target; a carrot on a stick that's just out of reach.
Greed ruins everything.
99.9% of new crypto projects start off on the wrong foot. Why? Because developers aren't thinking about all the cool applications that can be woven into the blockchain. They are stuck in the mindset of how an application can be monetized. After all, if they aren't going to make money off of it directly what's the point?
This is, of course, ridiculous, because anyone with stake should want to raise the value of the platform. We've been brainwashed to think that this is a zero-sum competition because that's all we've known since the day we were born. The idea that someone else might get more rich from our inventions than we would is enough to cause a feedback loop of inaction while brainstorming another project that would provide more direct capital.
The problem here is that the more value a project extracts the less sense it makes to connect that app to the blockchain. Crypto is all about disintermediation, removing the middle man, zero-friction permissionless systems. Any client should also have the option of being a server. How many dapps can you look at that fit this description?
How many dapps can you look at and say: The community owns, regulates, uses, and profits from this app, and it isn't being leeched by any other 3rd party? Literally none of them. Where are all the talented altruistic developers that want to save the world from these invisible bonds of debt-slavery?
I'll tell you where they are at; right back on square one developing the real killer-app of the blockchain: Money. Does Vitalik Buterin get paid Ethereum inflation in compensation for all the great work he's doing there? No. He does it for free, but he has stake so the value he brings gives wealth to everyone. This will be the new way that cooperative economy operates. How can we apply these concepts to the Steem blockchain?
As it stands now, DPOS is working perfectly. Steem allows users to control 90% of inflation without running a node. This is huge. We trust the stake-holders to elect trustworthy witnesses. DPOS is a republic. We leverage the efficiency of this model, at the cost of security/centralization, to allow any account to create inflation. We leveraged that again into a platform that promotes a tipping model. In short, our platform is impossible to copy without using DPOS because POS would require every user to run a node, and POW would require every user to have mining equipment.
Not only that, the 10% inflation that we don't control is returned to us in the form of Resource Credits: a very valuable asset required for posting information to the blockchain.. While Steem is experiencing scaling growing pains, the value of RCs will far outweigh the 10% inflation they cost to acquire.
We have a good setup here. The community is up in arms about price action. Some think Steem is bleeding out simply because we have extra downward pressure. In reality we are light-years ahead of the "competition". What we have now is so much better than fiat, but we don't want better. We want mind-blowing next-generation revolutionary domination. We want proof-of-brain.
POB
If Steem was actually proof-of-brain its value would x1000+ overnight. Honestly, that's probably a gross underestimation. You can't really put a price tag on paying people fairly. It's something that's never been done before. Work ethic died a long time ago. How can we get there from here?
There have been many suggestions! Most of them revolve around a hardfork that would change the fundamental building blocks of our Lego set.
- Increase curation rewards (50% is a good start)
- Move away from pure linear and into something like n^1.3
- Subsidize downvotes (cheaper downvotes, separated pool)
I've come up with many bad ideas as well. Why are they bad? Because we want a Lego set that is as simple as possible that can still build a great many applications. These ideas overcomplicate our Lego set and don't allow any new applications to be built that couldn't have been built otherwise. We are looking in the wrong direction. These solutions would just allow bad actors to game the system even further. That's how regulation works. The more rules there are the easier it is to get an edge over people who don't know how they work.
(view in night-mode lol)
BUIDL
Rather than change the fundamentals of the blockchain, we need to build on top of it to fix the problems. Bid-bots thrive because our frontends value upvotes above all else via the broken "trending" tab. Whales get away with voting garbage and anyone who challenges them gets terrorized and buried. The propaganda machine is strong here.
All problems with Steem have been created by the inferior products connected to the blockchain. The absolute biggest problem is that whales get away with upvoting garbage while engaging in terror campaigns if anyone confronts them. So far, they've gotten away with it every single time. How do we stop them?
Consensus
These leeching rent-seekers/monopolizers are not conspiring together against the blockchain to take us for all we are worth. They work alone in an environment that rewards their behavior. It's very simple: stop rewarding their behavior with inaction; make it unprofitable.
We're already more than half way there. We've already got consensus: proof-of-brain. A huge group of us believe in this subjective concept, but we can't hardcode subjective opinion, so we need to create the infrastructure to reach further consensus on the topic.
Changing our perspective about flags.
Flags on this platform are wrongfully interpreted as the most heinous thing you can do to someone else. A slap in the face, a stab in the back, the first person flags for a legitimate reason. The second person flags because they got flagged. The first person flags because of this unjustified retaliation. Oops! Infinite loop flag war incoming! This activity leads to the most unhealthy and vile acts on the platform. The first step to bringing proof-of-brain to the platform is to sever the connection to the infinite war that we seem to mimic in the real world.
What is a flag?
Strip away emotion and what do you have? A flag takes away future inflation from two people and gives it to everyone else by adding that inflation back to the reward pool. An upvote takes that inflation and gives it to one person. From this perspective flags are much more altruistic and generous than an upvote is as long is the flag is justified and people aren't flipping their shit over it.
One can only justify a flag on an individual basis. If you flag someone because they flagged you, you are wrong automatically.
POB DAO
It's very obvious to me that a proof-of-brain decentralized autonomous organization needs to be formed with these concepts in mind. The emphasis of such an organization should revolve around moral high-ground and deescalation.
How?
- Create a group that stands for proof-of-brain.
This should be easy because everyone talks about it and wants it to happen. - Set up a voting structure.
This could be simple or complex and subject to change.
This will be the hardest thing to keep from being corrupted. - Vote on the top ten worst abuses of reward pool allocations/deallocations on the blockchain.
- Offer the #1 abuser a deal.
- Flag/upvote accordingly.
Why flags? Scientific Method.
Can't we just focus on upvotes and not be so aggressive?
First of all, flags are not aggressive, people are aggressive. Secondly, no. If you believe in proof-of-stake then the platform is working just fine; don't join the POBDAO. If you believe in proof-of-brain then this platform is hemorrhaging value at an alarming rate. You can't stem bleeding with proper diet and exercise. We need to cauterize the wound using a crimson hot poker with the knowledge that causing a little bit of damage now will save a life later.
It's much easier to make the argument that an action has zero/negative value than it is to make the argument that something has value (and how much). These are the basic principals of the scientific method. You don't try to prove something, you try to disprove it. Flagging allows us to implement the scientific method on the blockchain to reach consensus on subjective matters.
Does this action have value? See how easy it is to prove something wrong?
Maintaining the moral highground.
It is absolutely imperative that a POB DAO does not become corrupted. The same is true for avoiding flag wars. How is this accomplished? By pushing the idea that a flag is not an attack. It is a gift to the entire community. We don't want the account we flag to lose money. Quite the contrary, we want every account to gain value. The only way to do that is to control Steem's inflation in a way that supports proof-of-brain. After this is all be over, we'll all be rich and living in abundance.
Conscript the "enemy". Offer a deal.
After the votes have been cast and the #1 offense has been identified, the DAO doesn't just start flagging that account blindly. A deal must be offered. Concessions and compromises must be made.
The illusion of choice is a powerful psychological control.
Say the DAO votes and decides to fine a whale $1000 for gross misconduct. The DAO should approach that whale with some kind of choice.
Hey. We all voted and agree that this is happening, but maybe you'd like to take a look at our top ten list and see if there's anyone you agree is hurting the platform.
If an agreement could be made, the whale in question would not get flagged. They would flag someone else in the top ten for a significantly reduced fine. For example, instead of being directly flagged for $1000 they would flag another account for $250. We could also throw out a protection agreement to counteract retaliatory flagging. The sky is really the limit on what kind of agreements could be made.
The point is, as long as the DAO is big enough and has enough stake (consensus) then we can bend the platform to our will. Our will is proof-of-brain, so we are justified, and the accounts that we flag will actually gain massive value because they are the ones that have the most stake. They are simply short-sighted and milking the platform for short-term gains. We see the bigger picture. A long-term strategy is required.
Behavior will change near instantly because the abusers of proof-of-brain (team proof-of-stake) know that their proof-of-stake actions no longer have value. After a very short time, simply the existence of the DAO will create a #1 abuse vote of @null, meaning there is currently no account worth flagging at that time.
Stop the corruption from seeping in.
How does voting work? Is it stake based? That could be a problem. Is it one-account one-vote? That could be a problem. If you create a DAO of dolphins who all have an equal vote, how do you stop a whale from creating 100 dolphins and infiltrating the organization? It's a good thing bots fail the Turing Test.
When it really comes down to it the power of a POB DAO resides in the scientific method concept that identifying negative value is much easier than gauging positive value. It will be quite obvious if corruption sets in because the top 10 is transparent. It should be obvious to see why, using very basic rules, that every pick in the top ten has negative value. If not, there is a problem. Good thing DAOs can fork, and a POBDAO fork would be extremely trivial. We choose our own politics.
I look forward to being a part of this system in the future. It's going to happen, regardless of who sets it up and participates, because we already have consensus. Proof-of-brain already has a majority. It's simply a matter of building corruption resistant infrastructure based the tenants of decentralization. No one can be in charge. It's a DAO.
Proof-of-brain is like life. It's a journey, not a destination. We can never reach the goal, but we can get closer and closer with the proper consensus. Proof-of-brain is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, except this rainbow has a trail of coins underneath it that we can pick up as we go. The closer we get, the more value we gain. Join me... no... join the POBDAO.
What is needed is a proof of Proof of Brain, in my opinion. It's not like there aren't ample resources on the network to support it.
Ah yes, the CAPTCHA argument. We've talked about this before. This will definitely be a thing eventually.
https://steemit.com/captcha/@edicted/puzzle-games-as-captchas-part-2
The world needs to be shown that out pilot app (blogging) is actually pretty boring and useless compared to the other stuff we can build.
That may be true, however being able to decern oneself from a bot could have many practicle applications beyond blogging.
Yeah, my version of it would be used to validate human players in gaming. The economies of video games always get subverted by bots. The CAPTCHA idea could make it quite difficult for bots the enter the space and cheat the economy. Combine that with the fact that there is no centralized entity leeching the game and I think blockchain can make some very special games that pay players to develop and simply to acquire resources within the constructs of the game itself.
This is way to complicated to produce a quick replay...i have resteemed and saved the post for future pondering...this idea could get us somewhere thats for sure:)
Hmm, I guess there will be much teaching involved.. teaching the mass about POB
And there will always be people trying to exploit, or even ones letting themselves be exploited
Great article :)
Very interesting where your path will lead you, especially after SMTs. ;)
Posted using Partiko Android
I like it. I'm in.
POB DOA sounds like what I thought Steem was gonna be when it started. Then all of a sudden whales realized the power they had. Remember when STEEM was like actually worth much more...saw so many personality changes. Problem is that line i so easy to cross when no rules apply
Calling this post awesome would be an understatement. I’d be wholeheartedly thrilled to support the POBDAO. Let’s make it happen!
Posted using Partiko iOS
What a great article.
Totally agree. I am ignoring the Trending Tab altogether because it's depressing to see all that bullshit being upvoted to the tune of hundreds of dollars.
But even worse is seeing thousands of users wasting their Witness Votes to help bullies and scammers. I just don't get it. By electing these leechers, people are voting against themselves.
Loving the concept with this. The whale voting and flagging is just ridiculous, and them getting violently offended if you flag them for their bs tactics.
Really good post.
I would think that app developers should own the apps and decide what content is suitable or not.
Censorship for a niche app is not necessarily a bad thing.
People are free to decide if an app is for them or look elsewhere.
Posted using Partiko Android
This and @statsmonkey were good sources for this data, but i havent found anybody willing to recreate them,...
Amazing post thank you! This is our mindset at @dlux-io. I’ll admit at first I was cautious of others profiting more from the idea, but over time gave way to this better way of thinking, and I hope it continues to spread. We’re building infrastructure that would allow any client to be a server, because like you say that’s what this is all about, so we need to practice what we preach!
Posted using Partiko iOS
This is really beautiful. I can't wait for this to happen.
I love all the suggestions you've given. But like you stated at the beginning of the article, it may be a lil idealistic.
Question: what happens in a worse case scenario? A voting ring of whales that simply refuse to stop and buffer each other up to defend against flags. What happens then?
I ask because I know at least 2 high stake rings and even though they don't appear to flag back, by calculations flagging them wont reduce their abuse more than 20% except we have whales on our end as well.
How plausible is a new voting algorithm that reduces rewards if you vote the same person more than twice in 24 hours?
Some abusers simply post once a day and upvote $300-400+
Obviously they will be able to escape previous algorithm. How do we combat them?
Not plausible at all, unfortunately. This is an example of a hard fork solution, and it's something we should try to avoid. Fixes like this would only siphon even more inflation to the whales because they are highly motivated to sidestep such regulation.
Meanwhile, average users who have no idea what's going on get penalized and would then be distributing less inflation than before. Who now controls those extra rewards that got taken away from users that don't know any better? The whales who know exactly how the system works. They'll just make more accounts to get around your regulation and your idea will ironically backfire.
The only way for proof of brain to happen is with consensus. I know this will be easier to achieve if we target one abuser at a time and bring them into the fold. The movement will grow when we show that we are scalable and none of the abusers can get away with their bad behavior.
Greed is contagious. One bad actor spawns 100 more. If one person cheats (at anything) this makes other people feel left behind and cheated, so they justify the behavior. It's time to reverse the polarity of this toxic dynamic. We have to make the behavior unprofitable for users one at a time and compel them to join us to stop the rest.
How about earning a PoGoodwill badge versus deserving a PoEvil label, where a PoG badge qualifies one for stronger up-votes and a PoE label qualifies one for weaker up-votes and a PoE labelled member will have to earn the equivalent of a PoG qualification in order to cancel the PoE label.
I suppose that is the way up-voting and down-voting (flagging) is supposed to work, but does it?
If qualifying for either the label or the badge requires a number of votes by distinctly different account holders, would it perhaps make a significant difference?
What's stopping you from setting up this POBDAO? I'd happily join, lemme know when it's happening.
Posted using Partiko Android
It may or may not happen with the group that @kabir88 is trying to form.
Software needs to be created in order to scan the blockchain. It needs to be easy to see where the biggest upvotes and flags are. It needs to be easy to vote on flagrant offenses and possible plea deals. It needs to be easy to neutralize retaliatory flags of enraged whales. Everyone in the DAO needs to agree on a basic constitution.
If there are any developments I'll be sure to post them.
You gotta another dev person in the ranks. Kabir just invited me but not a dophin just yet.
I'm actually working on something to put a few bot owners on blast for upvoting stolen memes from an abuse network. I think it is important that people know exactly the types the vote sellers are giving influence on our blockchain. Hopefully, shining a light will encourage them to fix it but not holding my breath.
I look forward to the PoBDAO. We got plenty if PoB oriented people from SFR and FAW that I'm sure would gladly join this initiative.
We're just so tired of the crap. Let's come together and see what we can do to fix it. Appreciate you, @edicted.
Posted using Partiko Android
I think the key to eliminating vote bots is to create a decentralized vote-buying market where everyone is a vote-bot. This will undercut all the for-profit services out there and show these talented programmers that they just straight up wasted their time trying to create a centralized service with them as the middle man. Blockchain kills the middle man. We need to rewire our brains in order to participate with this economy in a healthy way.
Another way to kill vote bots is to eliminate the artificial scarcity created by the trending tab. We need decentralized trending tabs that are controlled by each individual user or a trusted proxy.
I believe the backbone of all the apps I want to create involves a platform of decentralized reputation scores. We chose who we trust on the blockchain, and those choices modify the information we receive and the order we receive it in.
Damn, you're sound!
Definitely agree with the decentralized market idea where anyone can perform the service. But, alternatively, an opensource version of steemvoter might work as well.
Delegation upvote services might be the key. Nobody spends money and various small communities benefit within their topic/tag or something.
Your decentralized trending tabs thing is taking a little time for my mind to wrap around.
I like the reputation aspect. One thing that frustrates me about reputation is that it holds virtually no value at all. Its just a number next to our face that suggests we either have a ton of SP, spend a lot of bid bots, or rarely get downvoted. The last part is good, but the first two nullify the last's value add.
Determining reputation and trust is the core fundamental problem of every blockchain in existence. Blockchain needs more consensus algorithms. proof-of-brain needs one most of all.
Cool, I've already spent a long time developing software that can detect late votes.
You'd find it more than useful and I'd be happy to adapt it and create different methods.
Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 6 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.
I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 5 SBD worth and should receive 180 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.
I am
TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
TrufflePigI agree with your proposal to change the voting structure. Not sure about the Dao though.
Though, Currently we have @steemitflagrewards and @spamminator. Perhaps we can work with that.
Either than or your proposal can work on a more decentralized manner where everyone adopts these rules without rulers.
Posted using Partiko Android