create account

RE: EIP FAQ by yallapapi

View this thread on: hive.blogpeakd.comecency.com

Viewing a response to: @trafalgar/eip-faq

· @yallapapi ·
$0.03
How exactly does this solve the “problem”? Authors get less rewards, controversial posts are encouraged to be downvoted, and bid bots will still be profitable if they upvote themselves or proxy accounts. Sorry but it sounds like a terrible idea and really just a lazy solution. If anything it’s just going to encourage even more circlejerking
👍  , ,
properties (23)
authoryallapapi
permlinkpsbldv
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
created2019-05-30 13:56:21
last_update2019-05-30 13:56:21
depth1
children6
last_payout2019-06-06 13:56:21
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.026 HBD
curator_payout_value0.008 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length342
author_reputation106,969,209,795,209
root_title"EIP FAQ"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id85,751,387
net_rshares68,550,451,782
author_curate_reward""
vote details (3)
@trafalgar ·
Authors get more in reality because most of the rewards go back into the pockets of stakeholders right now. 50% of a large pie is far better than 75% of next to nothing.

I believe abusive post farms and poor quality bid bot posts would likely be a much larger target for free downvotes than posts about controversial subject matters, generally speaking.
👍  , ,
properties (23)
authortrafalgar
permlinkpsbmn2
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
created2019-05-30 14:23:30
last_update2019-05-30 14:23:30
depth2
children5
last_payout2019-06-06 14:23:30
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.000 HBD
curator_payout_value0.000 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length354
author_reputation196,449,472,677,173
root_title"EIP FAQ"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id85,752,785
net_rshares34,196,481,295
author_curate_reward""
vote details (3)
@yallapapi ·
$0.05
How exactly is it a larger pie? Still doesn’t solve the problem of people upvoting their friends because they are friends. Good content will never organically reach the top on this platform unless you figure out a way to completely get rid of self voting and voting rings. 

But more than that, there will always be a small group of people who try to minmax any platform and game the system. But as long as there is money to be made then you can’t stay ahead of them. As I see it the only thing this change will do is make it impossible for people to use bots for exposure, at least not without taking a massive hit. So we’ll go back to the small group of cool kids getting their posts constantly upvoted by their cool kid friends, full of unnecessarily positive “great job!” type comments... 

Maybe just outlaw bidbots altogether and heavily penalize people who use and operate them. There are always ways around it but this would get rid of most of them for sure and at least make them invisible to most users. Make using bidbots a bannable offense. 

But like I said even then that’s not going to solve the problem of people just putting money in their friends pockets instead of actually upvoting good shit.
👍  , , ,
properties (23)
authoryallapapi
permlinkpscmg1
categorysteem
json_metadata{"tags":["steem"],"app":"steemit/0.1"}
created2019-05-31 03:16:51
last_update2019-05-31 03:16:51
depth3
children4
last_payout2019-06-07 03:16:51
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.036 HBD
curator_payout_value0.012 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length1,212
author_reputation106,969,209,795,209
root_title"EIP FAQ"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id85,785,744
net_rshares95,940,624,377
author_curate_reward""
vote details (4)
@baah · (edited)
$0.20
How is friends upvoting each other even a problem? That is the point. The follower feature is essential to the whole ecosystem, you cannot fix "friends supporting each other" without completely breaking any premise that social media, community and society itself is predicated on. Speaking of social media, the point is to gain an audience. You seem to think that it's a problem, or that people will not try to make friends with new people, that they won't vett friends to others and introduce them to their groups. I literally did just that with [@lordless.exyle](https://steemit.com/@lordless.exyle) and [@quillfire](https://steemit.com/@quillfire), I hardly can call them acquaintance to top it all off, I'm possibly THE most antisocial person on here and I'd give the most cave dwelling isolated recluse a run for their money but even someone as socially autistic as myself won't subscribe to the notion that "friends being friends" is a problem.

There's no voting rings, stop the nonsense. Also, the point of the proposal is not to rid the place of any profit maximizing behavior, it's to make profit maximizing behavior in line with discovering content, making friends and genuinely curating. It means that we compete with those who are dead set on extracting every penny they can get out of their stake by "maximizing", and we could even have a decent chance of outperforming them.

The white paper talks about how preventing abuse should not be the goal, the goal should be to penalize it because prevention comes with a much higher cost that everyone will be burdened with.

People can put money in their friends pocket and upvote cool shit, it's not as if those things are remotely exclusive to one another, they may very well be the same thing any number of times.

I wish people would really consider what the proposal is aimed at, instead of putting up these strawmen and false premises for what it is about, especially since the problem is clear and it's past the point of debating it, maybe then we can actually discuss the proposal or similar proposals that focuses on the actual problem instead of spinning in circles.

= _ =
👍  ,
properties (23)
authorbaah
permlinkbaah-re-yallapapi-pscmg1-20190602t065109324z
categorysteem
json_metadata{"app":"partiko","client":"android"}
created2019-06-02 06:51:09
last_update2019-06-02 06:53:09
depth4
children3
last_payout2019-06-09 06:51:09
cashout_time1969-12-31 23:59:59
total_payout_value0.150 HBD
curator_payout_value0.049 HBD
pending_payout_value0.000 HBD
promoted0.000 HBD
body_length2,143
author_reputation-15,002,280,126,271
root_title"EIP FAQ"
beneficiaries[]
max_accepted_payout1,000,000.000 HBD
percent_hbd10,000
post_id85,898,204
net_rshares369,028,448,776
author_curate_reward""
vote details (2)