RE: Reward Pool Rape: Downside of Steem Blockchain innovate nature Or Abuse of Free will?
The fact that the other apps feed into the Steemit blog means that what is proposed will not work. Like you said, 4 zaps, which are nothing if it does indeed become like Twitter, would use up the daily allowance. People send out hundreds of tweets a day.
Also, I fail to see how limiting the number of posts is freedom. We claim to be non censoring yet by limiting, we are shutting people up. There are accounts on here that act as "news" accounts. Certainly, there are more than 4 things happening in a day.
As I posted this morning, the power is shifting as more people sign on. Right now on person can make waves with the pool being so small. Get another million people on here and the impact is much less.
People can downvote and that is one avenue of the system. However, if 1,000 people went out and got 10 people to sign up (granted the sign up process cant handle that) and they posted 10 times each day, that would be 100K new articles posted...that would dilute the take home of a certain few individuals.
Right, that was another issue that I overlooked in my initial suggestion. Thanks!
Good point hence why I extended the discussion here in order to reach more people and continue finding solutions...thanks for your great posts @papa-pepper and sending in your comment here.
If nobody was voting for those 100k articles you'd have a lot of disappointed users. Trying to displace the ever increasing and determined haijin is a nice idea but why would that affect the reward pool rape? He's got much more shares in ONE VOTE, one ONE POST than all those 10 people. How could you realistically keep up without flagging?
It is simple...he only has the 10 votes...unless he wants to do more and cute down the voting weight on each post. Either way he is maxed at 10 per 24 hours (at 100%).
If those downvoting starting posting, especially the heavy hitters, their author rewards would dilute the reward pool, taking away from Haejin. The reward pool is what it is on a daily basis....the only variables are the number of posts and the voting power that was voted.
If the number of articles suddenly went from 70K a day to 210K a day, this would dilute the reward pool by spreading the payouts over the other articles. A tripling of the articles, especially with heavy SP people posting, would overwhelm him. He simply cannot ramp up to keep pace.
It is akin to the stats I have posted for the last month talking about the power of the whales and orcas decreasing. For the past 120 days (the time I looked at) the few with the big SP are simply losing power as a percentage of the whole. This is because all the new people posting who are taking a little here and a little there. One or two means nothing. But when 10,000 people are doing it, it starts to add up.
Author rewards are 75% of the reward pool....posting is the quickest way to dilute it...especially from one person.
No it wouldn't because there would be 100000 posts that are worth 0 shares. The power is still being voted on only a few posts.
Okay if you say so.
How would 100K post be worth 0 shares?
Because you got 100k that are 0 votes.
Not if everyone used their 20% daily voting power.....
And I am not sure 40% of the posts on here get 0 votes.
Do you have any evidence of this?
Even 100K at .01 would be 1000 which would offset the single offender a great deal.
rancherorelaxo has 1.3M SP. A new account has .5sp and 15 delegated, so about 16 sp. 10000 users couldn't negate the content if they flagged directly. Math.
First off it is 100K and I didnt only say for new users to post...it is for the other whales to do it also.
But it is okay..ignore the evidence of what expansion of the number of posts has done to the distribution of power over the last year.
If those 10000 people voted on other things it wouldn't do 1% the damage that flagging would do, but then nobody would get rewards and it's pretty lame to hold 10000 people to be responsible for not even 10 percent of the voting power of one user.
What 0.01 rewards? If the SBD payout is < 0.02 you get zilch as an author or curator. It gets zeroed out. I have had lots of posts with ranges of like 0.004 to 0.019 all get zeroed out when 7 days is up. And the fact the site half rounds up the reward display is also discouraging because it will show 0.02 for a 0.015 post, which then gets zeroed out after 7 days. Very bad psychologically for minnows and plankton. Especially when the 0.02 display (which looks like it is at payout threshold) for a 0.019 payout turns into 0.00.
I can see "news" as several digests or an other app with a few accounts like "sport news", "scince news" and so on. They can be added on separated accounts and be reposted at one account (even without an app).
So I do not think 4 posts is such a limit. I never posted more than one per day )))
I agree. In fact, you convinced me, 4 times a day is too much. Everyone should post once a day.
And while we are at it, why stop at only the number of posts. No posts over 500 words. At the same time, we should limit it only to topics no controversial subjects..hence no political postings, nor religion, nor sports.
We will limit it to only attacks on fiat, bread making, and how to make your home more cozy.
Havent we seen what limitations do?
I guess not.
It's still very strange that you advise everybody to be prepared to become a newspaper ))) and publish all hot news at one account.
Why then we need so many of them? Let's become readers and have just one with unlimited publications.
Did I say everybody become a newspaper?
Nope I didnt say that....
But let us look at what you did write...
Ah, you are all for limitation. So you see a few accounts for news. What is someone doesnt want in those accounts...or like the form of 'news" that is issued.
According to your logic, why not just have one person post on every subject we can think of and we all can read that.
I guess you are all for limiting behavior on here.....
Sad to see.
Personally, I am for freedom not slavery.
In fact, when I think about "news" and "digests" I do not quite understand why self-upvoting is cosidered like an abuse.
Creating a platform, buying steems to have a power to make money for the work done, to pay to authors, designers, e.g.
Ok, we suppose that other person can appreciate newspaper work, but why then to buy steems for such projects? They will be created just for raping the pool?
Don't think it's all the questions for you - they just came to me with this discussion.
Good point indeed, I am for freedom too however as you know my dear buddy, people abuse free will!!! hence the need to put in mechanisms to tackle such abuses-that is the main theme of the post.
Good point, thanks for your comment
Very good comment indeed which acts as a solution for discussion. Thanks you so much for your suggestion which is highly appreciated
Nice comment I guess also as we grow in numbers in steemit, with many posts, those who post multiple times daily might not find it that rewarding...right?