You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Case 12: @rtdcs is growing a gang of sock-puppets
Flagging is one thing, but I hope that Steemit, Inc has a process to review these findings and revoke their SP delegations on any abusive sock puppet accounts.
Hopefully this will be addressed in the next hardfork, though that seems long overdue, I'd expected it sooner. Steemit Inc. was supposedly working toward a system where new accounts receive a permanent bandwidth allocation which would allow them to interact with the blockchain as a normal user would - instead of receiving the delegated SP required to do so now. Essentially new account should start with 0 SP, removing the incentive for this type of situation.
Bryan, how much SP do new users start with? I guess you are right that a 0 SP starting point for new users would encourage those users to interact more with users with SP perhaps. So, I am thinking your idea may be better than maybe some of the alternatives.
Currently users are given very little SP, (1 or less I believe); but they are delegated approximately 15 SP from Steemit Inc. in order to give them the necessary bandwidth allotment to function relatively normally with the blockchain. This delegation then dwindles as a user earns their own SP until it is taken away, it’s use fulfilled.
That system is a big driver for abuse, particularly at large scale. 1000 fake accounts amounts to 15,000 SP delegated which is substantial. The thinking is a system which allows interaction but begins a new user with a vote weight of 0 removes this “attack vector.”
It’s also unsustainable for every account to need the initial 15 SP. Currently there are only about 250 million SP in existence. That would cap the user base at under 17 million people. A big number, but nowhere near the scale needed. So there are still big changes ahead to the basic principles of account creation.
Yes, this will be in HF20 to deal with large scale onboarding of new accounts. Hopefully it comes soon to slow this down.
There are quite some arguments to be made if this will indeed fix the problems. While it certainly does remove some of the incentive (the free voting power delegation) it does not fix the problem of creating fakes and the base bandwidth might be a big floodgate for spam.
We'll have to see how such a fundamental change will play out, but at least cheaters won't get a free stake to use in their schemes.
Agree on the spam issue. Having bandwidth limitations was one of the great features to help mitigate spamming. It made quality interaction actually somewhat necessary to get started - and that was one of the draws for this platform (which has been all but lost at this point).
I never understood why catering to low-quality users was preferred over the alternative.
One of the reasons bandwidth became an issue for new users was due to the payout period being changed to 7 days. When you have to wait that long to see your first rewards trickle in, it makes overcoming bandwidth limitations much harder for people eager to interact. It's another one of these changes that were made without properly evaluating the potential consequences and understanding the coherence of the original protocols and vision.
But they just kept plowing ahead without worrying about the effects of the changes...even after-the-fact, when abuses became much more rampant and lucrative. At this point, I have no expectation that anyone actually cares to restore protocols that were both purposeful and effective.
If I'm not mistaken Dan warned everyone against the changes in HF19 for the linear rewards issue too. Giving bigger (relatively) vote power to us smaller account too. All of it together kinda help breed this incentive to scam the platform.
I am staying positive that over time the issue will be corrected, learning as they go along, Steemit still is "beta" after all.
I wish I could disagree!
I have seen zero evidence that they 1) care about these things that occur with their delegated stake and/or 2) have any plans whatsoever to help mitigate it by undelegating.
They will likely just say, "You can downvote them."
Problem is - those downvotes cost you potential rewards because of voting power wasted on cleaning up their inefficiencies (messes).
They did remove abused delegations a couple months ago.
@transisto and @personz reported abusive accounts somehow and @transisto said they got timely results. I don't know how the accounts were reported, though.
There really should be a published process for reporting suspected steemit delegation abuses. That's a slightly different case from someone voting their own steem power from multiple accounts.
You know, our words have the power to change this. If a horde of accounts start criticizing steemit for it, I believe they will do it because of the pressure.
I would hope so, too, but it seems there isn't much attention being paid to this.
Even accounts that have been identified as sockpuppets 2 months ago still hold their sign-up delegation!!