You seem to think the largest accounts on the platform are going to go after scraps of percentages using a complex network of alts, risking downvotes and getting unvoted as witnesses - it is nonsensical.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The history of Steem/Hive is replete with examples of large holders doing everything conceivable to set up sockpuppet accounts and circle jerks in order to maximise their returns and mitigate losses - this is actually part of why we even have downvotes at all. This isn't theoretical, it's a well understood part of the blockchain experience here. I agree that plenty of users won't bother to use up all their downvotes in order to maximise their returns, but that does not mean that some don't and that they won't cause problems when they do it. The more HP an account has, the more worthwhile it becomes to use this approach. If the account has a specific goal of ideological suppression of ideas then they may even have a budget from 'somewhere' to downvote regardless of whether it makes money or not.. So any potential gain will be an obvious boost to the operation for them.
Big accounts obviously upvoting their own posts under anonymous accounts has mostly stopped (although I saw it happening again a few days ago from someone I won't name here who got massive downvoting in response to counter it). This is probably partially because they know full well that they get much better results from spreading their stake and posts over a larger number of smaller accounts. This is also a known strategy to minimise the risk from hackers when people hold high amounts of HP (sharding the HP increases security). You are essentially asking me to accept that the optimisation of what we have seen constantly since the start of Steem is nonsensical, when simple logic and experience says it is not in all cases, by any means nonsensical.
Lol - I am one of the ones that called them out publicly in posts and also pushed for the downvotes, which is why that kind of behavior doesn't exist here now. Also why Bidbots aren't a thing anymore too. But you know--- keep telling me about the history.
You keep talking about "ideological suppression" but this is nonsense. People aren't downvoting you for your beliefs, other than all of the things you say that are incorrect. They are downvoting because they don't think it should be rewarded, especially since, like Kenny's posts, hardly anyone is reading or commenting on them with highly rewarded posts having single-digit comments consistently.
You can say what you want here, but that doesn't mean people with stake and who are invested in the platform, have to pay you for it.
This is bullshit. Have a look at the voting behavior of those largest downvoters. @azircon for example. You think they are all his alts?
You can keep saying "simple logic" all you want, but you aren't practicing it.
Taraz I appreciate the amount of time you spend on this post.
I also appreciate everyone who spend recently countless minutes-hours educating ura-soul and Kenny. Trouble is it’s in vain. The last time anyone tried to bribe a witness ended up being KC. That is the fate with these guys.
Their greed makes me sad.
I said to this guy that it is always about the money. It is never about logic, hive, Covid or anything they talk about. They don’t have any other sources of earning. They just want to siphon off money.
People will see it. They want to make drama after drama.
Again thank you, Taraz. I know how much you care for the chain. This is real community service you are doing. Many thanks!
This group is tiring and definitely a waste of everyone who interacts time. There is so much wrong with their understanding and their behavior, that it should be hard to take anything they say on any topic seriously.
They think they are being ideologically suppressed, yet they haven't acknowledged that many other people saying much the same (because it is pretty generic) aren't getting downvoted for it. They live in a fantasy world of self-importance.
The approach in this particular post is one of bribery and hostage taking, not to mention, severe misrepresentation.
I am personally tired of these kinds of interactions. It has been going on with a tiny circle of users for several years now.
I just want you to know that I am surprised, happily, to read your comments here thanking folks for their work on behalf of Hive. It shows my my understanding of people is woefully inadequate, and little could benefit me more than learning how I can better myself.
I agree strongly with you that free speech is ours, and it is at our sole option to exercise it as we see fit. It is not my intention to exacerbate any differences we have, but I do want to advocate for the diversity of opinion that enables us to improve our understanding. If we cannot speak freely with those we disagree with, we can never come to agree with them.
As you have taught me here, often we are able to agree on things we have previously disagreed on, or were mistaken to think we disagreed on - but only if we have and take opportunity to discuss them.
Anyway, thank you.
Once again you are slandering and misleading here. No-one is bribing a witness here, there is no evidence or even reason to think that is what is happening. The HP has been proxied to me to use to vote for witnesses who are supportive of intent to direct Hive in a direction whereby downvotes are not used abusively.
The purpose and use of downvotes on Hive is open to interpretation, as are several other elements of the voting process on Hive - they are subjective. Therefore, different people have differing perspectives on what constitutes abusive use of votes or how votes should best be used. In this case many people disagree with the use of downvotes as you are sometimes using them and have come together to do what can be done to initiate changes that change the situation in favour of what they perceive to be a more beneficial direction for the marketing and growth of Hive.
As such, these witness votes are being offered to those witnesses who are willing to align with this intention and make minimal public statements to that effect. There is no bribery here, it is simply policy statement and alignment.
You like to speak as if you know everything about subjects, which you clearly do not. Here you are literally speaking about my own personal life, despite not even knowing the bare basics about it. This is totally obvious to numerous people - many of whom contact me regularly and in increasing numbers. I have no interest in wasting my time arguing over this.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH