Almost think you are going to go down to Tom with Dick and Harry being mentioned.
This depends quite a bit on downvote and I think if there's any reason it won't work will be it's not in our habit to downvote. At least not now.

On the surface, this looks fairly clear and simple and understandable... "on paper," the mechanism would probably work.

Where I have a question mark is in terms of real world building and long term sustainability of a COMMUNITY. This brings into question the relative value of a bot vote vs. a human vote, and the psychological impact that has in terms of both attracting new users and retention of those (and Older) users. 

Over and over, I see posts with 250 upvotes and maybe 25-30 views. Stated differently, I am now looking at content that has 250 automated pings, and 30 real human interactions. 

Don't misunderstand-- I have nothing against bots. They have a definite purpose, whether it's @cheetah or the twitterbot, or bots designed to discover spam, cheating, abuse, keyword stacking or whatever. Even bots designed to "fetch" promising content for future interaction, or "welcome bots" for new accounts (only). The problem arises when we decide that a random bot upvote has the same "value" to Steemit as  a real human manually reading and curating the content, and perhaps leaving a relevant comment.

Bots are-- in essence (unless you're a very advanced developer)-- "stupid." At their root, they determine simply "content exists." They don't "have opinions," they don't "like or dislike," they don't "have insights;" they are not "moved by;" they don't "learn something" from content. 

Again, not saying bot should be abolished... but asking whether it is REALISTIC-- in terms of new user attraction and retention and building a thriving community-- to have a system in which a bot vote has the same relative weight as a human interaction?

Maybe this comes back to the discussion of Steemit's self-identity. This is allegedly a social content site. That's great but... if the platform is dominated by an "army" of non-human automation, doesn't that directly contradict the whole notion of "social" and "community?" The counter argument is *"Well, a lot of people don't have TIME to interact with all that content!" FACT! But this is a "social" site, not "Game of Bots." 

Let's translate this to a more human perspective. You live in the town of Steemit which has 10,000 people in it. You're one of the city founders so you're a "Whale." You don't have TIME to go out and shake everyone's hand everyday and congratulate them on their new flower garden. So you you send everyone a postcard that says *"Hi, I remember you!"* (That's a bot). Should that really carry the same weight as a real citizen who goes by someone's house and spends 15 minutes looking at the flowers, chatting and sharing a cup of tea?

My point isn't that the "postcard" approach should be invalid, but merely downvalued in order to stimulate growth in the now stagnant new posting rate, and to stimulate actual interaction on posts... which will encourage people to create more "actionable" content... which will look attractive to a potential new user *("This is like Facebook, only cooler!")*, in turn looking attractive to investors, in turn helping bring the price of Steem back up. 

I'm a content creator, not a developer. Part of me is very excited about the potential of Steemit as something truly revolutionary... on the other hand (even after just 30 days) part of me feels a certain frustration that technology here so dominates the human factor...

Excellent :)

Maybe even better to show the somewhat complex scenario (Jack and Ken) in a flow chart, or spreadsheet. I'm a formula person, and like spreadsheets and charts since they come easy to me; others may rather like the way you formulate and present.

I must say, I tried to do a spreadsheet quickly, but failed, too many columns. Therefore maybe better in flowchart? When I can find some time, I can try to do that tonight. Or you have a go with it? :)

@abit resteemed! luckily I bumped into this at @oaldamster's page

Thanks for explaining it so .. almost idiot proof!
It helps specially if one is a newbie!

When I was a newbie I didn't know what to do .. it was like swimming in a school of a variety if fish and I thought just vote whichever was in trending .. but later on I have managed to learn swimming in the current and finally decided to just upvote the articles I really like and sometimes though I don't like the article just because the author is very interactive I upvote that authors's post, too!

>It seems that many people didn't understand how a linear reward distribution will be working, they just think it won't work.

We'll never know whether it'll work till we allow it to be executed for a certain period of time and I mean at least more than half a year.

I was happy with the change in curves, provided they all changed, not just one.

What do you think of adding an author sp curve?
An author with XSP gets less than an author with 10xSP, if voting weight is equal.
It would add value to the weight of the votes.
I think this will give more reason to power up.
Authors with more sp get a bonus on top of the weight of votes that they attract.
An author with less sp would get less bonus from the same votes.

The next thing we'll discover should linear reward distribution be implemented is that people still complain about the distribution and wealth disparity between users. 

Comments complaining about the number of votes vs views will continue to draw discussion. But really, the whole issue boils down to people mis-interpreting the buzzwords that the whole crypto community love to throw around - ***Decentralisation***.

Any kind of stake weighted system of votes, linear or polynomial will only skew the curve of the existing imbalance of wealth distribution. (Which itself is natural and I have no issue with). 

Should we  decide to get rid of stake weighted voting completely, we might end up with a system where votes themselves are fungible, but of course we open ourselves up to sybil attacks.

I bookmarked your post and finally read very carefully, start understanding more. I am one of those spontaneous voters, actually never really cared how my wallet fills up. It's good to learn more about the technical part. I really appreciate members like you to explain details. I have one question :  I developed a maybe bad habit upvoting my own comments but realized that it's kind of silly, decided to stop to do so . What's your advice on this  issue please ? @abit

It is actually easy to explain, as it obfuscates nothing; won't that be considered a negative?
*I'm still two cups of coffee away from shedding my morning cynicism 8-).*

Very simple and perfect rules, thank you for bring it to us.

As in the case of bots,  I don't think it's a problem at all.
Although contents with higher upvote/downvote ratio don't  always mean quality content, but most of the time they are, so they deserve more.

Thanks for making it as basic as possible. As a several day user, and generally not too clever, I am getting a handle on the way it is, and the way it will change. Einstein said if you cant explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. I think you have done well. :)

<p>This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Mar 06. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.09 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.</p> 
<p>See the full rankings and details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-mar-06---part-ii">The Daily Tribune: Mar 06 - Part II</a>. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/introducing-the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-nov-04---part-i">our initial post</a>.</p>
<p>If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.</p>

Of course it will work, the only side effect I would expect is that top-1 post having now 200+$ payout  with new rules would get something like 50$ only.