He's one user with 100s of bots. Even if it was possible to limit the damage one of his users can do, he'll just use the whole army to reach the same cumulative effect. Perhaps the solution is some kind of "blocking" mechanism to allow users to block bullies' bots from downvoting them en masse. But I am getting the feeling no one is looking for a solution, but rather ways to excuse this type of behavior on the platform.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why do you think that his multiple votes from multiple user accounts has some "cumulative effect"?
It does the exact same thing as if all of those accounts' stake were held by one account and made with one vote.
If we still had the n2 it would've diluted his power, but instead the rapists won, huh?
Instead of modifying behaviors of abusers we all had to lose some freedom?
Well, time will tell.
The truth will come out when the skills arrive that can make the reality digestable to the nontech folks.
If she cant be seen on the ui's she has been censored from the majority of users, and all not signed in visitors, huh?
I find it disingenuous of you to contend any different.
For the record i havent put much time into finding what she has done, bernie seems to know what he is doing.
N^2 vs current makes no difference in this scenario. Under both N^2 and current, you can spread your SP as much as you want accross accounts and the reputation and reward loss will be the same if you downvote with all of them as if you had it all concentrated in one account.
I may be wrong, I'm no genius, but the whole point of the n2 was to keep folks from spreading their sp into multiple accounts and selfvoting, if I remember Dan correctly.
It also served to multiply the votes of minnows when we ganged up on somebody.
Without it self voting and multiple accounts have exploded.
Delegation is what is hurting us the most, imo.
Sp that was off the voting tables is now getting voted and EVERYBODY'S vote has lost power, except the largest holders of sp, who couldn't care less and just want to make passive income from rewarding shit posters that have money to buy influence from them.
Same for the minnow gangs, when a minnow group votes all that sp everybody else's votes go down in value.
My vote was a dollar for a couple days, then it was a quarter, now it is a dime.
We will not attract quality content producers while shitposters hold down everybody else's vote by buying influence from peddlers or gang up to exclude folks that don't join their reindeer games, imo
But, I guess, long term, it is better for the price to go back to a dime so I can get more for the vests I do get voted,...so, burn, baby, burn,....maybe then we can get some 'rich' folks to listen when we say that the little guy has no reason to be here.
(edit) When 10 voters control 30% of the reward pool that 20k+ people vote from, that is an issue, to me.
A fine comment! I am proud of my good sense in following you.
Bringing anarchy to the masses one comment at a time, since 1985,....
No, N^2 was not done in order to avoid spreading of SP. The reason for a super-linear curation curve like N^2 was to encourage voting on things that other people might vote for, rather than just voting on any old thing. Under a linear curation curve, a curator would get the same reward regardless of whether other people voted on it or not (not strictly true, as the post could be downvoted and the curator would lose out, but true for most posts), whereas under a super-linear curve like N^2, a curator gets more when other people also vote on the post.
But it's worth noting that while the author reward is now linear, the curation reward is still super-linear (although not as extreme as N^2, which ended up giving most of the reward to the whale curators), so there is incentive to curate posts which other people will later upvote.
But the biggest problem with the curation reward system currently is a feature than Dan pushed on the system: a 30 minute period after a post is made during which early curators are punished for voting on the post. This redistributes most of the reward from the curator to the author if the curator votes too early. Most unsuspecting curators give up a significant portion of their curation reward because of this rule (and even if they know about the rule, do you really want to wait 20 minutes to come back and vote on a post?). And this rule also results in a lot of voters finding it more lucrative to follow a trail which is programmed to vote near the end of the 30 minute period rather than voting on their own.
Perhaps the worst consequence of this rule is that it's more beneficial to buy votes from bots than it would be otherwise, because you can get the bot to vote right away for your post and capture all the reward from the vote instead of the reward being split between the curator and author of the post. In short, the biggest economic incentive for self-voting using bots is a rule that Dan was the biggest proponent for.
Thank you for taking time to respond to my complaints.
I would still like to reverse that hardfork and alter the behavior of the misbehavers, but that is just me.
The problem still remains that 10 out of 27k+ voters give out 30% of the reward pool, and I don't see anyway to alter their giving it to authors that they approve of, it seems unlikely to get folks to support speech they disagree with, on the whole.
Optimally we would find a median and allow the bottom to have more influence while we want more bottom folks to join, and the top to have more influence when we want more investors.
This would require that some folks refrain from voting for the short term.
Currently all the incentives are doing is driving the little guys out, annoying the hodl'ers, and enriching the already rich.
Hardly a prescription towards mass adoption.
I would oppose ending the 30 minute window, otherwise folks will just stake out the new posts, at least with it there is the opportunity for folks to get ahead of the bots.
As it stands we can only wait for the reality to make it through the short term greed, long term we are better off with more users, imo.
Games have to have rules, otherwise there is no game.
When the top was getting most of the curation awards, were they also getting most of the author rewards?
If author rewards were larger before the hf, I say we go back.
As for the vote selling bots, and the gangs that gang up to reward the popular among them, put me down as waiting for the masses to catch on to the reality and their demise.
When whales vote the minnows have little reason to be here.
Before delegation got going my vote moved the dial much more.
Not in terms of rep. The rep is spread amongst the various multiples, and unlike SP, can be greater thereby than if he had but one alt.
This kind of "blocking" would be nothing else but censorship based on subjective assessments. So who would you allow to decide whether an account qualifies as a bullies´bot account?
On Facebook and twitter I have the ability to block people from viewing my content when signed in. They don't see my comments or posts, and so cannot attack me. I would very much like the ability to prevent mean people from randomly flagging my content or writing mean comments on my posts because they have all the power and can afford it.
Imagine what other social networks would look like if people couldn't block the bullies, trolls and spammers from hurting them through the platform. Do you think Facebook would have as many users as it does if it supported bullying and dictatorship like steemit does?
Yeah, I don't either.
Welcome to the blockchain! Every piece of content will always be visible for everyone.
I just love how she doesn't get that this isn't Facebook. But I love even more that this convo will be seen until the end of the Internet :D
And so everyone will continue to be potential victims of abuse and this platform will never become popular with quality authors and content creators. Because once you see the hundreds of flags I did on content I put my heart and soul into? You'll leave too. It hurts. It's offensive, and violent, and everything that is wrong with the Internet condensed into one awfully negative website.
Srsly, I didn't get attacked like this on reddit, 4chan or even in my olden days of dialup DALnet on IRC (yeah, I am old). Never did I feel this bullied and personally attacked. I did nothing to merit this, and the way some people in the community accept this type of behavior as "part of the platform" just makes me lose faith in people. Greed always wins, apparently.
Butthurt beotch can't just let it go... I was going to stop flagging you but since this is nothing but an attention play, I'm going to kill your account for real.
come on @berniesanders , please forgive her, we were chatting the other day and it hurts me to see her flagged like that, I mean clearly the blockchain is new to most of the people and will continue to be so for long but as soon as they get a grasp at it I am sure they will change opinion, I just want this site to flourish and clearly i would war the opportunistic users that are sucking the pool in silence without being noticed, that's is my main worry...
peace, abundance and love - PAL
Create a front-end that supports blocking certain usernames from showing on your posts or being able to see your posts only if you have befriended those users.
It seems to me you don't understand what a blockchain is and the public and open aspect of it combined with censorship resistance. You keep saying he is silencing you when anyone can still read your posts and comments even if they were flagged by everyone on the platform.
Stop comparing it to centralized platforms from the past, you should know the differences between them by now.
If you don't like it then you aren't forced to be here, but don't go around saying that everyone should leave and how the platform will die just cause you are close minded about it.
So you too support bernie's personal and verbally offensive attack on me? You think I deserved that?
I think I do understand the steem blockchain better now. It's a pyramid scam with a few old-money millionaires making a profit on the back of everyone else. There's no censorship resistance. That's a cute myth. Anyone with enough power can silence anyone they don't like without having to answer to ANYONE. And the community is just silently accepting their own inferiority and inability to compete with bernie and whoever he chooses to support.
The only reason my posts are visible is people who give a shit and oppose bernie's reign of terror over anyone who doesn't fall in line behind his scammy abuse of the platform. I honestly wish you were one of those people as I have heard positive things about you. But it appears you rather support bullying on the platform and mansplain it as me not understanding blockchains. Bummer for the little fish, I guess.
Where did I say that I'm supporting his actions? I think you are getting way ahead of yourself by saying the platform is no good and how everyone should join you and leave cause of freedom of speech and use of their stake.
Now you are accusing the platform of being a scam and you still don't seem to realize that posts never become not visible.
You seem really unstable so I'm not gonna continue this conversation. Good luck to you.
People tend to sound rather unstable when attacked, insulted and abused for a couple of days. It's a human trait, AFAIK.
The reason I assumed you support bernie is that you didn't say you oppose his actions. You made technical justifications (excuses) for his behavior, trying to normalize what he is doing because the technology allow for it.
Yes, I think the only way to solve this is to boycott the platform until the witnesses do something about the abuse of flagging and use of multiple users to impose subjective censorship on the whole community. This platform has endless awesome potential. It's why I came back and started being active in any way I could to try and make it better. But I am just one person with little power.
But by the looks of it - steemit will never be a respectable content platform. Because the old money doesn't care what gets published or who gets hurt as long as the steem dollars keep streaming in.
Nobody's justifying his behavior, as you can see from his terrible reputation on this site.
@acidyo has taken the time to explain to you: everything posted on this site is posted into a blockchain, which is immutable and cannot ever be edited or redacted.
This means, in practice, that all humans, for all time, will be able to read everything posted here.
This also means that those same humans, for all time, will be able to respond however they wish. When you yell to 7 billion people, expect some of them to yell back. Expect many of them to yell back with things you don't like, things you would classify as "abuse", things you would classify as "illegal", "hate speech", "attacks", "bullying", et c.
There is no technical ability, under a blockchain architecture, for taking your public statements and making them accessible only to a limited subset of people. That's not how blockchain-based global consensus works.
If you don't want the entire world to be able to read what you have to write (and respond how they wish), then Steemit isn't the place for you.
I think reputation should be based on follows and mutes instead of payouts. Some of the attacks in payouts are just to have an effect on reputation