There is a technical challenge to making this happen because of the way the voting system works. When votes are placed, they are done by calling the blockchain API programmatically. The blockchain cannot tell the difference between a human and a bot.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
But when you place it there is a door that leaves you place it. Let's assume the Authenticator is the key to open that door. To let you vote. Same problem?
Sorry, I didn't understand. If the blockchain needs to authenticate, it would need to present the token to a UI that would display it to a user. The same token would be presented to a bot. Both a bot and a user would have the same ability to solve it. I don't know how technically you would be able to implement one that woud only work for humans, considering it needs to be implemented at the blockchain level.
I'm understanding it like key encryption. The post delivers a public key to the blockchain, and only having that key allows a vote for the post.
The key is accessible only through the post, via, say, a captcha, which would prevent bots from getting the key, and then voting.
This would then prevent bots from independently transacting with the blockchain, because they wouldn't have the key.
It would work.
Unless my meager understanding missed something important - which wouldn't suprise me =p
got shot down pretty quick by @netuoso -
captcha is easily broken
all it would take is a month or two to get a human driven team getting paid pennies to solve captchas
then you have an even more lucrative system for some hackers since they can get around the block others cant
shitty captcha is broken easily with OCR. quality captcha is outsourced to humans
plus, having to solve a captcha for every upvote would be a huge burden to place on users.
Well, I agree about captchas being totally unwieldy, particularly for every vote.
But, there is a part of the answer, because there is a way to create a portal to the blockchain that necessitates first viewing the post.
Imma think on it more.
Thanks!
That's not even the worst thing. Adding a captcha to a post, which would have to be as some kind of link to a service, introduces a third party service into voting access to a steem post. That is absurd.
Unfortunately, with retention as poor as it is, and distribution being the most likely cause, I am unconvinced it is more absurd than the present situation on Steemit.
I am sure we will have the opportunity to revisit this issue.
Perhaps you can suggest a better means of providing a key on a post which people can access and bots can't?
It's at least an interesting thought exercise.
Great!! then, that.. would provide humongous free advertising & promotion for the Steem token and the Steem blockchain. And definitely, would means that new flourishing faucet based Start-ups & bizniz models would start growing up everywhere like worms all over the internet to earn easy Steem. (same as when the beginnings of bitcoin)
What undoubtedly would attract a bunch of hungry people out there who can't or are unable to write a single phrase as to save their asses, but even so, would contribute to sky-rocketing the popularity and demand of our precious Steem/SBD/SP holdings.
Well, ¡Yeah! at least these new exclusive pauper captcha eaters and prolly also illiterate actors interacting with the Steem blockchain in this way, would be Actual Human Beings milking humbly the system to be able to eat & fill their bellies and not Dumb/Blind/Greedy bot rapists fattenning the already obese asses of the greasy owners of the bots. }:)
¿Burden?, Ha! only for those Lazy Asses sort of users who are not willing to READ or aren't interested on consume good content and/or also refuse to Consciously Work for their rewards.
I mean, I think I've already talked too much. I better shut up now and I start working immediately in the programming and creation of a brand new Steem Faucet Website..... :p
In my view, the cons outweigh the pros - but it is mostly a matter of opinion.
Yeah mate. That's true. ¡Opinions! I suppose that weighing of the 'cons vs the pros' must be just matter to know from where and from what side of the fence you are weighing these scenarios.
¡If this is from the side of those who play the game with an empty stomach or the opposite! }:)
It's an interesting proposal. I'll pass on the idea to some devs to bounce it off a few more people.
Anyway we can implement a captcha on the blockchain where verification is needed before voting?
I am not aware of a way this can be done (technically). If it was on the blockchain, a bot would be able to read it, right?
Well until I saw a comment below reitterating that the bots interact with blockchain and not the UX so this may not be possible.
Quote from tarazkp:
The only other solution I can think of is randomly changing the voting period for max reward per day using voting information from the previous day.
I wouldn't recommend it. However all information on the blockchain is open we can have guidelines for bots.
What if there was a top out threshold that when hit, erased curation rewards and sent all rewards to the author, say $100, that way hoarding and piggybacking on one author could be lessened to some extent, and auto voting would have to be more strategic. It may also help with distribution problems.
You're my witness voting delegate, so I trust you may have a good answer.
The purpose of curation rewards is to incentivize users to vote on the best content. The threshold proposal you suggest would be counter to that goal.
Curation rewards have proven to incentivize gaming curation for rewards.
This is the widely recognized problem that is the reason for this post, and that almost no one will disagree with.
Do you agree that curation rewards incentivize financial manipulation?
I am not convinced that curation rewards incentivize ‘good’ curation.
That appears to be a qualified yes, or at least a probably.
Let me try again.
Are you convinced that curation rewards incentivize 'bad' curation?
Yes, but not 100% bad. I think it incentivizes users to vote for content that they predict will be successful. The original idea was that content that is expected to be successful would be the same thing as content that was actually good. This has turned out to be false in a lot of cases, and it has contributed to the problem of a lot of quality content being overlooked because it is unlikely to get enough attention.
Thank you for a substantive reply!
I completely agree with you in this regard.
They don't vote on the best though, only the most likely to make the most, some times inspite of lack of content. By capping how much is force funneled into larger accounts, would it not allow for the excess to be spread elsewhere. $100 being arbitrary, it could be $200 or $50
It is not that simple. There are 'good' and 'bad' curators, where 'good' ones are the ones that are actually taking the time to search out and reward good content.
If they are finding it consistently at the top of the trending page, how hard are they truly searching? I have no doubt there are random votes that find there way to the netherlands of steem, but most votes are precast amongst a select group ad infinitum, I'm as guilty as charging in some cases, there isn't always enough hours in a day to seek new, and your favorites will always get the best of you. My idea in no way punishes good content creators other then removing some lazy votes perhaps, it punishes curators who become to complacent in riding the trending page and pop topics like 'steemfest'
The idea of diminishing returns would make it less attractive to upvote the same authors (including oneself) again and again. I described it like that:
"How about if after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before."
I disagree with your assessment.