Nie wydaje mi się, ale powiem szczerze że nie sprawdzałem. Nie widziałem powodu bo nie ma wskazania do głosowania na tego czy innego witness'a więc moim zdaniem to nie ma znaczenia. Idea jest taka, żeby zachęcić do głosowania jako takiego bez względu na to, na kogo głosujesz.
Nonsense in my opinion. You should vote for good witness. I personally think to remove witness. Witness should represent his voters (witness is a practically politician), and I do not know if anyone is doing it at all.
I might as well vote on random witnesses and harm the network.
It's like with any other tool - might be used for performing good or bad deeds. No tool will eliminate all risks and take away all responsibilities from the end user.
In the package you get the place for witnesses to "advertise". I would also assume that this is just an initial stage and might be fine-tuned later on.
If you're just here for the rewards you can delegate to the account (ivoted) or anyone you know who is implicated in the choice of witnesses. We will insist on that point on our next posts.
For sure it might be used to only get the rewards (and abuse the system) but then it's just the beginning, it might be adjusted depending on what we will see in term of behaviour. For now, it seems to be working fine and rewarding people who vote consciously but it may change in the future, if we see a lot of people entering the program.
As @pibyk said, it's an experiment and it will be fine-tuned as we go.
Yes, but the system does not reward wisely (in my opinion), but I do not know how to create better system. It's simply best to vote for 30 people, but I do not know them. I do not even know 5 witnesses who are really good.
It's the main problem of our "program" and you're totally right.
We're gonna try, at first, to put the emphasis on proxying to the account (or any other proxy, if you know only one witness that is good, just proxy your votes to him) instead of voting randomly, that could be a first step in the right direction.
Then, when we will have enough participants, upvoting every one with the same strength, no matter the number of witnesses they voted for (1 vote will just required to be eligible) could be a solution. Maybe a system with a bonus for the ones proxying to us, we don't know yet.
Tylko kto stoi za projektem, bo jeśli jakiś witness to trochę kasuje idee :P, ale jeśli ktoś spoza kręgu zainteresowań to spoko.
Nie wydaje mi się, ale powiem szczerze że nie sprawdzałem. Nie widziałem powodu bo nie ma wskazania do głosowania na tego czy innego witness'a więc moim zdaniem to nie ma znaczenia. Idea jest taka, żeby zachęcić do głosowania jako takiego bez względu na to, na kogo głosujesz.
Exactly !
😃
Prawda
#ivoted and lets see what @ivoted will do :-)
Ciekawa sprawa to @ivoted... Czy jest różnica, czy ktoś zagłosował na trzydziestu witnessów, czy np. tylko na jednego?
Reward amount depends on the number of witnesses you voted for.
Nonsense in my opinion. You should vote for good witness. I personally think to remove witness. Witness should represent his voters (witness is a practically politician), and I do not know if anyone is doing it at all.
I might as well vote on random witnesses and harm the network.
It's like with any other tool - might be used for performing good or bad deeds. No tool will eliminate all risks and take away all responsibilities from the end user.
In the package you get the place for witnesses to "advertise". I would also assume that this is just an initial stage and might be fine-tuned later on.
If you're just here for the rewards you can delegate to the account (ivoted) or anyone you know who is implicated in the choice of witnesses. We will insist on that point on our next posts.
For sure it might be used to only get the rewards (and abuse the system) but then it's just the beginning, it might be adjusted depending on what we will see in term of behaviour. For now, it seems to be working fine and rewarding people who vote consciously but it may change in the future, if we see a lot of people entering the program.
As @pibyk said, it's an experiment and it will be fine-tuned as we go.
@ivoted :P
Yes, but the system does not reward wisely (in my opinion), but I do not know how to create better system. It's simply best to vote for 30 people, but I do not know them. I do not even know 5 witnesses who are really good.
It's the main problem of our "program" and you're totally right.
We're gonna try, at first, to put the emphasis on proxying to the account (or any other proxy, if you know only one witness that is good, just proxy your votes to him) instead of voting randomly, that could be a first step in the right direction.
Then, when we will have enough participants, upvoting every one with the same strength, no matter the number of witnesses they voted for (1 vote will just required to be eligible) could be a solution. Maybe a system with a bonus for the ones proxying to us, we don't know yet.
Wchodzę w to #ivoted
Wchodzę w to :-) #ivoted
#ivoted
@ivoted spróbujemy i zobaczymy co z tego wyjdzie, ciekawa inicjatywa.
Jestem za #ivoted.
@ivoted
#ivoted wiem leń ze mnie
Zapisuje się #ivoted