Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)

avatar
(Edited)

I started this post as a comment to @ura-soul’s post requesting clarification as to whether accounts upvoting his posts were auto-votes (because at least one of the whales downvoting his posts was claiming that as the reason). However, by the time I finished explaining my thoughts (in addition to directly answering his question), I realized that my explanation might be better served as a stand-alone post, so here it is.

Here was my response to @ura-soul regarding the ‘problem’ raised by his post (i.e. subjective downvotes):

The notion that a whale (or group of whales) would downvote your posts to zero because of presumed auto-voting is utterly ridiculous, imo (like this post, which generated tons of engagement, but was still DV'ed to zero).
 
Quite honestly, all this disgusts me.
 
However, despite my disagreement with those actions (and my disdain for those who promulgate them), I am resolved that the Layer 1 'feature' that allows such actions must remain (as a feature on Layer 1, that is), at least for now.
 
The downside to such behavior is that there is no way you can win against it (on Layer 1). As soon as one or more HIVE whales start DV'ing your posts, then it becomes costly for your supporters to continue upvoting you (because their curation rewards get zeroed out along with your author rewards).
 
So, there is an action by the DV'ers that costs them nothing, but costs you (in rewards that they claim were never really yours, which is technically true) but their actions also cost your supporters, and cost them curation rewards that REALLY WERE THEIRS (or at least should have been).
 
And, the DV'ers can continue this ad infinitum because it costs them nothing. The fact that it costs your supporters means many of them will stop upvoting your content (to stop incessantly losing their curation rewards). This is why such action is so disgusting to me -- it penalizes your supporters until they stop supporting you (or just keeps penalizing them, if they're stupid enough to continue throwing their curation rewards away).
 
I will be posting a more detailed explanation about my thoughts on this topic, and will link to that post here after it's published. (HINT: The answer to this problem resides on Layer 2, or at least it will shortly.)
 
In the meantime, I wish you the best in your fight against this abusive behavior; however, imho, you will be better off doing whatever you can to appease them rather than fight them or try to argue with them; they sincerely believe they are the 'righteous' ones. Nothing you or I say will convince them otherwise.


Below is my expanded commentary on the situation.

@dwinblood wrote an excellent post a while back explaining why DV'ing to zero anything other than plagiarism or fraud is malicious and that anyone who participates in such action has zero credibility (well, those are my words, not his -- read the post and comments to get his perspective).

My advice to those on the receiving end of subective DVs (such as @ura-soul) is to stop focusing your efforts primarily on Layer 1 and find some Layer 2 tribes to engage with (or create one of your own). Then encourage your followers to join you. Of course, they will, indirectly, if they comment on your posts and you upvote their comments -- they will get rewarded with the Layer 2 token(s).

I have been active within the proofofbrain tribe since its inception. It has its own subjective-DV problem (with at least one whale willing to DV posts to zero based on subjective disagreement). Although my attempts to change the ‘community rules’ to ban subjective downvoting was rejected (twice, actually), I will be launching a Layer 2 token in the coming weeks that will be complementary to POB, and will handle malicious behavior using the Layer 2 mute function rather than DVs. This will give folks a realm where the only action available to whales who dislike you is to ignore you.

However, it is important (for @ura-soul and others) to realize that Layer 2 (i.e. Hive-Engine) tribes and tokens are not at all decentralized, even if they claim to be. One hundred percent of the control over the issuance of the token, inflation rate, tribe-wide muting, etc. is at the mercy of the issuing account (see this excellent post by @themarkymark for more details about the risks involved).

Personally, I believe there will be a strong demand for the alternative I am about to launch. If I am wrong, though, I will rest easier knowing that I did my part to instantiate a potential solution rather than just complaining about the status quo.

In closing, I think it is important for folks to understand the fact that Layer 1 needs to be structured a certain way in order to ensure account-level censorship-resistance (i.e. when someone follows your account, they will forever and for always be able to view your posts, unless and until THEY or YOU choose to sever that connection). @theycallmedan did an excellent job here explaining why Layer 1 needs are inherently different from those of Layer 2, and why it is important not to confuse the two:

On a scaled layer 1 that is censorship resistant, you can then build layer 2 apps with various governance models. The key point is, on layer 2, you no longer need to worry about censorship resistance of the base layer, IE your metadata (account, community list, etc.) ... [because that feature is an integral part of Layer 1]

That is why there should NEVER be a Layer 1 system-wide mute function (analogous to the Layer 2 tribe-wide mute function). And, that is why DVs are a necessary feature for Layer 1 (unless and until a more creative way to combat plagiarism and similar forms of abuse is demonstrated, which will undoubtedly need to happen somewhere on Layer 2 first -- so that it gets tried and tested and pulled and stretched first).

So, with all that said, as much as the “subjective downvoting” @ura-soul and others have been complaining about disgusts me, the capability to do so is woven into the cloth of Layer 1 and cannot be removed (at this juncture) without damaging the cloth itself, which would not be in anyone's best interests.



This might be a hard pill to swallow, but it is what it is (for now, at least).



image source



0
0
0.000
196 comments
avatar

Yes, Level 2 is the way to go. I hope for much more tribes (outposts) on HIVE and especially looking forward to your project announced here between the lines. !BEER !WINE !BRO

0
0
0.000
avatar

I strongly believe one tweak would solve this. A free upvote to reverse downvotes. I talk about it here https://hive.blog/pob/@theycallmedan/proof-of-brain-theory-and-further-optimization

I reversed some of the damage from ura-soul, but in doing so I also hurt my curation rewards. No big deal to me, but a big deal to plenty and enough to make it so most shy away and or can't do it on a consistent basis without diluting themselves in the long run. I will revisit this and try to push for a community vote on it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!

I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.

Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.

One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.

It is one of the best ideas I've heard, to date, in terms of constructively dealing with Layer 1 subjective DVs. Regarding smooth's concern about someone splitting their stake to allow themselves the ability to counter downvotes against themselves, the fact that they have to split their stake means their ability to 'maliciously upvote' is cut in half, because if they use both accounts to upvote a single post, then they lose their ability to counter any downvote(s).

Although I don't know all the history, it seems a fair bit of the 'subjective downvoting' going on is focused on haejin and punishing him for past sins. If that is the case, then I would argue that enacting or keeping systemwide policies aimed primarily at punishing a single individual actually gives that individual far more control (over the platform) than is likely warranted. Just my $0.02 regarding something about which I am not fully informed -- so maybe that perspective is worth a proverbial grain of salt ...

0
0
0.000
avatar

does pulling ones upvote then 'zero-sum'
?

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

If someone revises their upvote, then the original upvote is removed and the new upvote value is applied.

For instance, if I upvote 100% then later change it to 0%, the author gets nothing and I get nothing. However, I do not get my upvote manna back, so zeroing out my upvote takes those author rewards away from the author and also takes those curation rewards away from myself.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I believe u understood quite well, even if I was sleep deprived rambling and couldn't fully form coherence.

Ty, answered well.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I used to think that way pre-HF25. I advocated ending the UV window in like 5 days to leave 2 days solely for the DVs.

I basically got what I wanted with the HF25. The effective UV window shrank to a single day (no big deal) and the next 6 days are DVers' home ground.

Guess what, now we are brainstorming how to counter excessive DVs. It is cool you guys already started to brainstorm how to counter excessive "free upvoting". Still, smooth is spot on and the fact that people (good actors and bad actors alike) need to change their voting tactics (as they do after every change of the rulebook) does not mean the system is fixed. Anti-DVers will be temporarily happy until the next hardfork deals with "unfair advantage" of the "free UVs". Just like anyone who has seen a political party of their choice win an election is going to be temporarily happy till the next government cycle kicks in.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.

If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.

My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).

I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is interesting and something I've not thought of. Giving a DV mana pool a divy of inflation, and it acts the same as UV in terms up earning rewards for using it. Few things pop into my head ill need to give it a deeper think.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing (to avoid either offending the crowd by DVing decent posts or "wasting" time to find actual DV-material) but decent rulesets seem to exist to keep things reasonable.

The real issue could be implementation. I am not really familiar with details of the way the code calculates the amounts but the fact that the post is supposed to take different amounts off the pool for author and curators might be a problem. Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split, the HBD haircut implementation thread taught me the code change could be more complex than expected.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing

Haha have a reverse burn post. Everyone park their downvotes there and create the most negative rep account there is.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Very interesting.
Yes, should be possible: first calculate the amount every curator had become, and then add/subtract the same percentage to/from everybody which you need to add/subtract that author and curators receive altogether the same amount.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am not really sure what your method calculates as the description is too comprimed for me. I am picking the most readable part and expect you to elaborate in case I read it wrong / drew wrong conclusions.

author and curators receive altogether the same amount.

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount. That is what happens right now and that is the exact reason the DVing is OP.

A post that gets 95 worth of downvotes and 105 worth of upvotes pays out 10 total (5 author, 5 curators combined). The vision is to pay out 105 total - assign 105+95=200 from DAO, pay out (105-95)/2=5 to author, (105+95)/2=100 to curators and return the balance (95) back to DAO.

That way, upvoting a post that has (is going to have) DVs on it pays out full curation reward. Not 5/105=5 % of the par reward like Hive 25.0 does (easily reachable via UVing something noone reads / bothers to DV)

That is Step 1 (letting people know they can UV someone that is under a deplatforming attack). More tweaks are necessary in order to get a good value discovery, but the above is an improvement to the current system on its own.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount.

That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:

Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split.

Aber Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache.
Wie dem auch sei, den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen und den Curationreward vom 'Votegewicht' des Votenden, ist eine sehr interessante Idee.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Dein English ist besser als mein Deutsch.

den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen

I never proposed that. Anyone can run thousands of accounts. There are ways to counter that but I do not consider them viable (some inadequate, others unwanted). I support DPoS despite most other DPoS fans make me feel embarassed.

even without skewing the 50/50 split.

I admit that was my turn to keep it too short. Let me elaborate. With incentivised DVs, you can expect everyone to use it as much as they use UVs. If we keep the current 4-1 ratio (not sure we should), we can expect an average post of 100 curated to end up at 60 value (80 worth of UV and 20 worth of DV).

Leaving it like that would mean nerfing authors'cut. Effectively, we introduced a new balance of 62.5/37.5 Curators/Authors' cut.

To avoid skewing the 50/50 split, we can change the DAO payout to 62.5/37.5 Authors/Curators. The abovementioned post that attracted 100 rewards (80 UV rewards + 20 DV rewards) gives 37.5 to Curators (37.5% of 100), 37.5 to Author (62.5% of 60) and returns 25 back to DAO. That way the 50/50 split is kept in the macro perspective.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.

If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.

My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).

I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

I do not think FREE is a correct term for either so I do not think I can conclude anything useful from the formalism.

Just cut [XYZ] in half.

Why would you do that? If XYZ was harmful, zero would be the better value. Otherwise, why not nerf it to three quarters or 0.31?

0
0
0.000
avatar

In the original system, your UPVOTE bar could be used up by UPVOTING (OR) by DOWNVOTING.

You could choose to DOWNVOTE but that would reduce your total available UPVOTE.

After HF21, a FREE DOWNVOTE bar was added, so you could DOWNVOTE with NO PENALTY.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am familiar with the system even though it was no longer in use when I arrived.

I am not cluttering up this thread discussing what FREE means to different people. What you wrote was not even related to my text you quoted (which is hugely appreciated) so I am not really the right person to address it anyway.

If you need me to elaborate on my previous comment, tag me in a quiet corner of Hive and I can try.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your support Dan, it is appreciated here. I just read and reblogged your post on downvotes and you make some interesting points. I know that @r0nd0n is moving to amplify the actions of @freezepeach in a way that is not dis-similar to your ideas, but having an inbuilt system function within a DAO along the lines you suggest would maybe be the best possible option. I think that maybe your free upvote suggestion might be made simpler by just reducing the amount of free downvotes that people have to 1 per day, though the comlexity of the various proposed options will no doubt yield outcomes that I am not able to predict in advance, so maybe your model would work better.

It's definitely sub optimal to expect large stakeholders to police the network and usually it isn't needed - but then it usually isn't the case that other large stakeholders attempt to use negative reinforcement to increase their curation payouts, rather than offering positive, creative additions to the community. While it is unpleasant to see this in action and particularly when it is done under the guise of being a 'service' to the community, at the same time it is inevitable that such exploits and barriers to sustainable growth will get exposed in systems over time. The key is to focus on the solutions rather than get caught up in constant battle.

As a long time system engineer and now digital marketer, I am a fan of iterative testing of ideas and A/B testing. These allow us to see without any doubt which ideas/designs work best to achieve performance goals. Layer 2 solutions offer a definite way to test out a wide variety of ideas and I have advocated for this since the days of the mythical SMTs on Steem. We have never quite gotten there though and the high cost to entry for Layer 2 sites on Hive currently is significantly holding this process back.

If layer 2 solutions become cheap enough to enable rapid development and testing of new ideas then I think we will see these wider systemic problems resolved quickly too. In the absence of that, I would suggest being open to testing variations on downvoting via future Hard Forks, such as reducing the amount of free ones available and/or the DAO idea you mentioned.

Cheers!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for the mention. We are indeed working on a solution, which is the culmination of trial and error over these past few years. Allowing stakeholders to act in accord to with other like minded stakeholders to take the wind out of the sails with regards to politically motivated downvoters. No flag wars, no drama, just positive interaction to curb and perhaps eliminate the behavior entirely.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I like the sounds of this and wait in anticipation. Are you currently innovating this on layer 2 with the intent of merging it into layer 1 R0nd0n?

0
0
0.000
avatar

This will be a layer 1 solution using posting authority and manual reviews. Read more here.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ok! Sounds like we might be on the right track! I’ll give this a read later on today. Thank you sir. 🙌

0
0
0.000
avatar

make similar to, with a 'tribunal' ? - if accounts are found to be dv at an unfair consistency, 'we the people' nuke them out of existence?

i dunno... im a bit of a shitposter, but ive never incurred a 'hater' apart from when scammo had his legion of trailvotes on me.

i try to vary my posts around, but i ... i think i burned out at the beginning with 5000 word $0.03c posts noone read / replied to - my thing is 'bounce' - i ... i cant even word it..... probably need to sleep (4:30am-ish, with 3 hrs sleep since 5pm 2 days ago )
i started with on point, then digressed infinitely XD

but thats why u guys love (hate is still love ) me though, right?

0
0
0.000
avatar

A free upvote to reverse downvotes.

There is a free upvote service from @droida at http://droida.ch/hive/, but I highly doubt that it could reverse the downvote of a whale, let alone a group of whales. At least currently. This project should get much more support from the community. There should be strong co-operation to reverse downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for the mention.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for supporting the community. I wish you all the best with the project and with everything else. Have a nice day. Greetings from Hungary.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:

if you like something upvote, if you don't like something downvote, its not personal

Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.

Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.

All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi,

there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.

Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.

Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).

In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.

I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?

Thank you.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users

You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what I am saying.

Since no such contract exits and never will. Consumers does not have any loyalty to the author/creators either. We can chose to vote what we like and how we like it.

I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders

Everyone is a stakeholder. The difference is, how much stake is necessary to have a meaningful opinion in governance. Again the answer is subjective. There is no real number and its a sliding scale. I have seen people taking meaningful part in governance with 100K HP, and I have seen people taking no role in governance with 12M HP. But usually since this is a DPOS blockchain it is widely considered proportional to your powered up hive.

You can have a better understanding if you read the whitepaper.

https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf

0
0
0.000
avatar

What do you mean by "meaningful"?

In the context of numbers, i.e. the level of stakes, I can't derive meaningfulness. It's communicated content that provides meaning and in principle does not need a stake to motivate someone to make a suggestion or participate in the design of the platform.

But how I understand you, in other words, the higher your stake, the more weight and importance your word should have. Am I understanding you correctly? If someone with 12 M HP decides not to assert a will to shape, they could still do so at any time and have an influence. Whereas, on the other hand, if someone has far less than 100K HP, it makes no difference if they want to influence, right?

If no one has loyalty to each other, the whole thing here would be nothing more than a kind of gambling, where you just bet your chips on a whim, no matter what content you are playing with. No matter what authors write, it is not important what they write, but only that they write so that the game continues.

But I see something different. Loyalty and the formation of communities of interest are taken very seriously here, just as certain behaviour is either rewarded or punished.

The - one might say foolish - side that sees it all as great fun is not seen as funny at all, and the people who very seriously monitor behaviors and opinions seem to want to prevent the very face of Hive shown on the outside from being perceived as a gambling hall and a place of arbitrariness.

In my view, this contradicts the "we can choose what we want and how we want it." There are hundreds of etiquette posts, advice articles on voting and commenting behaviour, and a constant argument about these matters.

If it is as you say, no one would really want to spread the word that this is decentralised governance. Because of course that is not true. For me personally, I clarified the whole matter a few years ago with one of the witnesses here, who finally said that it is anything but decentralised. Basically, the marketers say something different than what's in it.

In principle, this is what could be written on the packaging:

Nobody takes seriously what is published here. It is a matter of complete arbitrariness. The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.

I've read the paper several times back then and I bet, very few people read it. For me, that's subjective, it's not a law, it's an approach how one can look at this matter.

But do you really think, that is how the people here perceive this environment? I don't think so. Up- or Downvoting is connected to emotions drawn from the contents being published. If it'd be totally un-attached to emotion, there would be no need for either up- or downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Try not to write wall of text.

  • Think through
  • Summarize in bullet
  • Two-three bullets enough

I can give you a simple rule of thumb. Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance. If you can't, then don't worry about upvote or downvote. Live your life and enjoy.

Have a good day

0
0
0.000
avatar

Interesting, you want me to rethink my answer. I think it's fine as it stands.
There's always the possibility that someone else won't mind the length, it's public here. If it doesn't meet interest, I can live with it.

Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance.

I already confirmed that this seems to be the state of the art. In case, you nevertheless read what I answered.

Basically, I don't take a position that is fixed in principle, it varies depending on the situation/topic and who I meet. If I ride on principles, I may ride them to shame.

You too, have a good day.

0
0
0.000
avatar

so to clarify, if u have a big enough wallet, u can be a douche or a king, and people will fall at your feet. and if u are broke af and posting just to put food in your mouth, it doesnt matter how 'smart' you are, or how much u COULD change the platform for the better/worse, because noone will see / listen to you, because they just want to get some whaledick

or at least thats what my 4 years+ have taught me XD

0
0
0.000
avatar

Indeed, such things can be observed. But away from the big theatres, people go to the smaller stages and what lasts for a long time can one day be quite a substantial structure, which may even be able to feed one or two people. If you are an artist in life, you often make do with little, but you are your own boss (well, in many things, if not in everything). You shouldn't mess with the world, it often bites back, but you don't have to pander to it either. I agree with that :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

so to clarify, if u have a big enough wallet, u can be a douche or a king, and people will fall at your feet. and if u are broke af and posting just to put food in your mouth, it doesnt matter how 'smart' you are, or how much u COULD change the platform for the better/worse, because noone will see / listen to you, because they just want to get some whaledick

or at least thats what my 4 years+ have taught me XD

sounds about right

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is exactly how Hive has always worked - with the small exceptions of the awesome, principled, whales/investors - who have supported the little folks, helped support journalists, and pushed back against the oligarchs.

0
0
0.000
avatar

There it is folks! Plain for all to see! Your words don’t matter unless you have a higher stake than the arbitrators giving their thumbs up and thumbs down in the coliseum of content that we all call Hive. Thus… the perpetration of literal “Hive Mind” and the manifestation of abuse across the blockchain. THIS is where the problem originates… and THIS is why we are NOT A TOP 10 COIN. [period]

0
0
0.000
avatar

The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.

INFORMATIONWAR

0
0
0.000
avatar

Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations.

Great point.

0
0
0.000
avatar

All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.

That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.

I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.

With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.

A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).

The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.

0
0
0.000
avatar

A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP

Sounds complex, and I am sure it goes against the core hive values. But it is a possible discussion point.

Are you attending hive fest?

Do you know the core members? Might be a good idea to get to know some of them during the hive fest.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Are you attending hive fest?

I would like to, but I will be traveling during most of it.

Hopefully I can attend some parts, even if it's hit and miss.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I’ll be there and I’m certainly looking forward to it! 👍

0
0
0.000
avatar

Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers.

Agree! For the last 3 years I haven’t sold a single hive, bought some. Moved into SL. You did the same. All your hive are bought from the market.

So we agree.

Redistribution is a hard concept for people to understand Dan. That’s the issue we are facing.

0
0
0.000
avatar

we could fall into centralization before we know it.

yep.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"Could fall into"... This platform has always been centralized, and will never stop being centralized. The dPoS system guarantees that - never mind the old Ninja Mine and all the other BS.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Good point.

However, the prospect of a witness reshuffle apparently struck a nerve.

Do you support the principle of free-speech and the right to a fair-and-public-trial ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

The only way to change the witnesses would be to change the stake-holders, which would mean someone has to put a LOT of money into Hive, to try to change things.

Anyone with the kind of funds to get stake like that, I would definitely recommend putting it into something besides Hive. Don't try to take a system designed for 1 thing (maintaining whale stake) and use it for something else... just build something else instead.

I support the idea of Free Speech, because it falls under the category of You can do whatever you want as long as you are not threatening, harming, or defrauding another.

A "fair & public trial" is definitely not something that I support. The whole idea of punitive justice exists only to serve the state, and those who control the state. In actual conflict resolution, things like a "trial" have no place.

0
0
0.000
avatar

There is a lot of stake that is not currently voting for any witnesses.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

On that same post I pointed out how the "free upvote" is basically just a nerf to downvotes (those getting downvoted, whether justified or not, can use the "free upvote" as a sort of shield, which can be harmful as often as helpful). While that would help with "bad" downvotes, it would also hurt the value of "good" downvotes. I'm far from convinced it really helps overall, and could very well make matters worse overall.

At some point, people have to just accept the fact that voted rewards are a sort of consensus-finding process, and if enough people/stake don't agree that the rewards should be paid to someone or some content, for whatever subjective reasons, that isn't consensus, and the rewards won't be paid (or less will be paid). The total amount of rewards, system-wide, will still be paid, they'll just go somewhere else, somewhere less contentious and more aligned with consensus. One poster's loss is always other posters' gain. It is a zero-sum game in a short-term sense, and inherent in that is that not everyone can win.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Absolutely! We, the consumer are at liberty to consume.

That said I worry about the volume of non-sense that often get rewarded by massive upvote. Not only it makes us look bad (like a conspiracy platform full of shady people), but also most of these folks sell their rewards immediately and therefore are a drain in the system. I don't even feel they believe in the "snake oil" they are peddling, smooth, they do it because it pays handsomely!

0
0
0.000
avatar

What I'm missing the most in this subject is clear, visible ratio earned HP/powered down HP. This would be a great suggestion for distribution of upvotes for stakeholders.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I can request @dalz for this data. He usually loves this.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Powered-up invested funds should be counted somehow, too. But seeing this in post for a week is one thing, and integrating it into frontends by default is another. From the single post perspective the most valuable data would be the biggest drains, meaning accounts who powered-down the most of the money earned by posting.

I'll write the entire post regarding this idea and more, it's bouncing in my mind for last weeks.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

For a certain list of users yes, say the top 1000, but not for all of them :)

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Yes, especialy those who publishes (authors) and get author rewards. Top 1000 will be fine. May be even top 500 (or even top 100!) will be okay, but can we separate them into communities? I am particularly interested in:

  • Proof of Brain
  • Covid19
  • Deep Dives
  • Informationwar
  • Threespeak
  • News&Views
  • Leofinance

Some of them are just communities/tags while others like POB and LEO have their native L2 token (so they need to be added somehow with the hive rewards).

0
0
0.000
avatar

*requests edit pointing bullets to actual links?

0
0
0.000
avatar

hearing that... i love 'the work' - i just dont have anyone requesting of me, and the stuff ppl want is generally as simple as a slice of code ( i say slice, but that could be 3000 lines long ) as opposed to actual sleuthing, etc XD

0
0
0.000
avatar

You mean, "viral Hive content" that gains no traction outside of a small handful of people on this platform?

Gosh, I would rather @pressfortruth gain more recognition than the stuff posted around here.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes “viral hive content” :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I liked the suggestion you made to my original idea on this point. "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."

Not sure exactly how we get there, but my point remains. If you get diluted by taking action, very few, if any, will take that action. It helped a lot with DVs. While I agree we need more healthy DVs on the most post, it's rare to get a post on web2 without a downvote. It's just people need to adjust the downvote size, or it causes harm. No need to zero out a post from someone legit every time they post to the chain. So it would be nice to find a way not to be diluted when trying to find equilibrium with the token distribution.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I saw a comment here I forgot who from about a possible inflation reward pool for DVs. Meaning if you don't use the DVs, you miss out on rewards. I believe nudging good people to use downvotes will be very healthy. It's ok to do a small/normal size downvote in relation to the post rewards if you disagree. And if we had a more balanced healthy DV system, we would see much more competition for the rewards. Obv this would also help "bad" downvoters, so my point above remains. Maybe a mix of both, one to encourage healthy DVs and one to help counter overhanded ones.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You probably have problems locating that comment because it is hidden as it came from a shadow-banned account.

As for the above post - I do not see why an "UV to counter DV" should be treated more favourably than a regular UV.

The technical part is interesting as my proposition also has to deal with DVs going past the zero threshold (it would be too easy to park $20 worth of your DV mana on a $0.01 post) AND allow these to still be upvoted back to positive numbers.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Downvotes spread more widely would indeed help with some cases, since then getting downvotes would not be so devastating to rewards (most content would have some so the zero-sum aspect would mean it would tend to balance out some).

Though it still wouldn't help with these "downvoted to zero" situations. Again, people have to accept that in a voted-reward system, highly controversial content with a lot of disagreement won't do well on rewards. We don't (for the most part, though front ends do hard block child porn, etc.) censor it, but we won't reward it either.

Layer two where a narrower subcommunity (i.e. with less disagreement on some things) can decide differently about what it wants to reward is probably the best solution.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Imagine an economy where you had the option to EITHER give performers a tip OR take a tip from a performer.

Now imagine that when you take a tip from a performer, they're tip gets "redistributed" to the remaining performers, with the largest share going to the performers who earn the most tips.

Small performers will be heckled because there is no fear of retaliation.

Large performers will always reap the majority of the rewards kicked out of the hats of the smaller performers.

In the end, you're simply reinforcing an anti-competitive environment where the big fish use their position to only allow performances they personally approve of.

Sure, there may be some legitimately "bad actors" - but even they deserve some pretense of a FAIR public trial and some reasonable path to redemption.

Secret DISCORD kangaroo courts do not meet this standard.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Or maybe just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

That way, if people have equal stake, it takes TWO people downvoting in order to ZERO them out.

Isn't the whole theory of downvoting supposed to be some sort of "community consensus" anyway ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

It ain't over baby!!

A couple months ago some people laughed suggested going over to Blurt. It's not a laughing matter anymore. What is this place without freedom of speech? Blind downvoting ain't the way you do it. A funny way to show they care.

' better think it over baby.

Since I have no bourbon. I've got to send you burgundy !WINE to go with these goats and some !LUV.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Something you just said triggered me in a good way... perhaps the key word is "blindly". If a downvote is cast without opening the content (auto down voting), it seems to be malicious. Perhaps auto downvoting could be curbed and a requirement to open the article to downvote would solve the issue... making it a manual process, though, I suppose you could teach a machine to mimic an opening of an article and downvote... just thinking in type...

0
0
0.000
avatar

weedcash front end has this i believe ( not so much the automation of process, but u cant just 'trail' ( or at least it didnt look like it moons ago when i was looking at it)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I often shy away from matters regarding downvotes because they can be quite controversial and also can earn you a place in some people's bad books (which is not so much of a problem to me these days).

Downvotes are necessary, even on layer 2. We cannot ignore that people exploit the loopholes in the reward system and sometimes it is not intentional in the case where one is been autovoted, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing per see. We have so demonized autovotes and failed to see its value.

There is a lot to curating than just rewarding quality posts which is subjective. For instance, I am aware of a newbie initiative that is structured to help committed newbies grow their accounts faster. The upvote on their content isn't based on its quality but more on their effort and commitment to the chain.

People reward content, personality, relationships, etc This is a social norm even on a decentralised social platform

As I have said in the past, what makes a post rewardable is the value it adds to others, and value in itself is subject. So the best thing to do would be to let people decide through upvotes and downvotes. However, the power structure on layer 1 doesn't make this a fair game--it has never been.

Layer 2 solutions seem to be the preferred option for many people, but it does have its cons.

In a nutshell, I don't think the system is structured to be fair. If it was, we will all have equal stake and votes, which isn't even ideal. So that's the dilemma.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Layer 2 is more flexible.

You actually don't have to downvote to remove rewards because tribe leaders can mute individual posts and deny rewards to individuals, depending on your set up.

It's less messy. And in that regards, downvotes becomes optional or even purely for reward disagreement.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Great anylisis and have missed your posts! I agree and also wanted to add the only real ways for a newbie to build stake is to focus on a tribe that interests them and grow within it.

Have I missed a blog on this new token your launching or is it still to come? Either ways have some swap.busd ready to go to launch in.

!PIZZA !LUV !ENGAGE

0
0
0.000
avatar

Now that my posts are all being downvoted to zero on Hive, I'm Looking foward to seeing your new layer two option.

I'm totally over all downvoting, which has ramped up greatly in the past two months.

Some people think the insiders want to drive content creators off layer one - they certainly appear to be working towards that.

A whale told me to go to blurt if I don't like downvoting - that is looking like a more solid option by the day...

https://blurt.blog/@frot

And so is Bastyon

https://bastyon.com/frot

0
0
0.000
avatar

I consider Blurt laughable but I did carefully read the help section on Bastyon.

Do you think it is more abuse-resistent than Hive? My first impression is that while abuse might be more logistic-intensive than simply buying and powering up a token, it is still relatively easy to shadowban a user you dislike (you have to hoard reputable accounts instead which opens a decent opportunity for people who are able to build them for a resell).

Can you change my mind about that?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

No, I can't... but in a vague sense, it just doesn't seem set up to shadow ban a user - it would be more effort than it's worth.
Bastyon's biggest selling point is the encrypted chat - it's getting thousands of new accounts because of that.
I wasn't all that impressed with Pocketnet two years ago, but now it seems to be on the brink of going big. Rebranded, and going with encryption and no censorship, it's ready at the right time.

Blurt - I laughed at first as well - terrible name, and it got off to a slow start. But Hive is a terrible name too (hive mind), and Blurt is a real underdog. All it would take is a dozen big name Hive bloggers to move there and it could suddenly become hip. Bastyon is very different, but Blurt is basically Steemit without whales.

So if my days on Hive are pretty much over, I have three options - Bastyon, Blurt, or a new Hive based front end that's in the works. One way or another I want no downvoting. At this point I'm open minded, and waiting to see how things play out. I've met some amazing people on Hive and if we are going to be forced off the Hive platform, I want to keep my contacts in one place

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hadn't heard of bastyon. I like Hive for dlease. I'm using Hive to feed steem purchases because steem leasing is over 30%while hive is at 12%. Will blurt have a dlease option?

0
0
0.000
avatar

I respect your effort into creating different solutions and accepting that downvotes need to exist on Hive. Wish you best of luck with your experiment and also agree that downvoting to 0 where effort, content and engagement existed does more harm than good, in general zero'ing is not good, no matter the real intention of the downvoter.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I was watching for your post about the current DV situation… I’m of the opinion that this needs to be fixed at layer 1 however.

We need to pay the price because currently capital freedom (This is what investors and especially entrepreneurs like me are looking at when we examine the fundamentals of a project like Hive.) isn’t available on layer 1 and that is eroding our marketability in huge ways.

Right now (with the current undeveloped DV structure) we are trading 1 abuse for another. This is sub-optimal and a hard sell at best.

What am I eluding to? Currently… it is possible for 1 account to own another account financially with the DV.

This perpetuates group think throughout the network and only serves the larger untouchables on this platform. (Take a look at what’s transpired on my most recent @AdventureReady post to see the tip of the iceberg about that. I have reblogged the post I’m mentioning with this account.)

Basically a whale is directing smaller accounts in the background to do his dirty work for him… and this is VERY bad for business (and ultimately Hive as a utility structure.)

If you would like to see what I mean… take note as the above mentioned event is connected with what follows:

A couple weeks ago I “tried out” the DV (as it is a “main feature”) awhile back by DV’ing on 2 comments (with no rewards above $0.10).

These were low end comments at best and rather than have them featured at the top of the post’s content I thought it would be best to move them in rank down to the bottom of the comments section. (One comment was someone bullying another user and the other was someone celebrating “how they were one of the mean people on the blockchain) 🤷‍♂️

Anyways… what ensued was very interesting…

Apparently the only people allowed to do any DV’ing here on Hive are the people already doing it. Just watch… this comment I have made on your post is going to yield somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 DV’s.

I’m not kidding here… it has rendered my notification system all but useless in fact. This sort of behaviour is what I’m calling “DV Spam” and I believe it is a huge deterrent to Hive’s utility sell.

I realize that we need ways to control for plagiarism and spam on the blockchain… but this responsibility shouldn’t be done at the individual level but rather collectively at the community level making use of DPOS and a dashboard feature for posts that are transitioning through a predefined flagging process.

This is what I mean by undeveloped DV... in its current state it is very raw, unfriendly, and far to subjective allowing in effect 1 account to “own” another (at worst) or the perpetuation of “group think” (at best).

I believe we can never innovate the next step (layer 2) effectively if we don’t first address the disfunction already taking place on layer 1.

Derivatives of derivatives scale either functional utility or disfunction abuse. Our foundations are what grant everything built on them their stability/value and so I am serious when I say… We need to continue to innovate new and better ways to human and we need to do it at layer 1.

If we can not do this… building out a layer 2 solution will be absolute misery.

Launching viable ideas as an entrepreneur is already a difficult endeavour wrought with high amounts of risk and all the stress that goes along with that.

We need friendly social environments to innovate in and invite people to.

Environments where raw exposure to DV’ing (with out a due process) are good for bots but bad for humans.

That’s why (for now) I have decided to discontinue 3 years of effort building out my 2 fitness business’s on the blockchain and powered down all my Hive except for that associated with @Comet.Ranker.

Let’s face it…

It’s hard to do anything positive in a DV charged social environment.

Looking forward to your response.

@wil.metcalfe
P.S. @ura-soul thank you for writing the last 3 posts about this issue. I have read every word and every comment marking them with upvotes along the way so that I can keep track of the ones I have read and the ones I haven’t yet read. I will be revisiting your post’s often as I believe this is integral to Hive’s success or demise.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, but what did you do to get downvoted? I am on a DV trail that focuses bad behaviour etc. I'm not familiar with what has occured with yourself but happy to hear it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ah ha! One of the people I wanted to speak with about this! 👍

Before I get into it… you may want to consider removing yourself from the trail you are associated with… it’s a bad look especially with the level of conflict, debate, and turmoil currently at play around the issue of DV’ing…But this is just a suggestion. I respect ownership and freedom most of all and so I am not going to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do with your stake. (Unlike some around here…) 🤷‍♂️

First things first… your jumping immediately to the conclusion that I have done something “wrong”.

So this is we’re we need to start.

There are people here on the blockchain that think that they can determine what people should or shouldn’t do with their stake (as mentioned above) and then there are those who have put it upon themselves to label other Hive owners and subsequently downvote them indiscriminately without proper basis or process. (In my context I believe this to be DV Spam and also Abuse.)

Here’s an example of this when I announced that I was shutting down my fitness business (incorporated and trademarked I will add) after 3 years of attempting to make them succeed on the blockchain:
https://ecency.com/automaticwin/@adventureready/adventure-ready-milestone-marker-oct

As you can see I stood up for myself against a whale asserting my rights as a Hive owner. (This is also when the DV situation I described above transpired and is now on going.)

To be plain before the above mentioned situations… originally I was accused of “comment farming”.

I have openly contested this and even written a White Paper on the importance of engagement and rewarding engagement with a “comment ranking” method.

Here’s the official #CometWeek White Paper:
https://ecency.com/hive/@wil.metcalfe/launching-cometweek-1000-hive-reward

As well… it should be noted that I have personally given away thousands of Hive before I was labeled in this way and have also given away thousands of Hive afterward. I, first and foremost, value social capital and believe that engagement is the best way to compound trust on the blockchain. This is why I have been giving away so much Hive for close to 4 years now.

You can verify my transactions in all of my accounts:
Fitness Business’s: @AdventureReady
@BeachReady

Hive Engagement Service:
@Comet.Ranker

And my personal training account (I’m a certified personal trainer with over 10 years of experience in the fitness industry as a trainer and business owner.)
@wil.metcalfe

Check and you will see. Thousands of Hive.

I find it insulting that petty and small minded people would accuse me of such nonsense… and I’m not even going to get into just how subjective the labels are that have been imposed and thrown around. It’s to the point where I have to call it what it is… labels and lies.

There’s a lot of breadcrumbs to follow… and I’m not in the habit of answering to anyone about what I choose to do with my stake…

Stake I accumulated by selling my physical business, my stock accumulations, and also my savings, and the posts and content I have generated over the years to add value to the Hive community and blockchain.

I even have held top 5 position for the promotion of Hive on Twitter (which takes 5hrs plus per. day) for months and as everyone knows… this is all work done for free.

I know for a fact that I don’t deserve this sort of shitty treatment…. And I wonder to myself how many people have already concluded this.

And I also wonder how many new people (be they power players or regular beginners) would put up with this level of disfunction and abuse?

Needless to say…

Until the DV is further developed with the entire Hive community in mind I won’t be telling my friends, family, and famous about Hive.

And just for 1 example… one of my Twitter friends is Mark Moss. (Him and I speak occasionally.)

img_5169.png

What I’m saying here is…

We gotta see the current DV for what it is… a perpetuation of abuse and a system that trades 1 abuse for another.

This is effecting our standing within the wider crypto community and it is wiping out our marketability and market prospects across the board.

Savvy investors know it and are watching… this is an embarrassment and most people won’t stake their reputation let alone their capital while these practices continue.

I hope that you can see…

I care a lot about the Hive community and the technology it is based UPon…

I see Hive as a once in a lifetime opportunity to innovate new and better ways to human.

That’s what excited me nearly 4 years ago… and it’s why I never powered down (only invested) year after year after year…

The current DV structure has me having second thoughts…

I’m saddened by this…

Very much.

If you doubt my sincerity…

Please check each of my comments that I have made. You will note that I put a lot of care into each comment.

Also note the attention to detail and what I have put into my posts over the years…

I have respected the blockchain foundations my content is hosted on… I even ditched Facebook and only used Twitter to promote Hive. (And that’s saying something because I have the @beachready Twitter handle… it’s a coveted user name…)

Have I convinced you yet?

I hope so…

Please stop what you are doing and give the current DV structure more thought… especially when it is used in a trail like this.

It’s doing more harm than good.

@wil.metcalfe

0
0
0.000
avatar

Has a history of trying to defend anyone and everyone as long as it allows him to go on endless rants, many of whom have been clear abusers but as long as it gets him some attention he seems to love it. Caught voting up comments of alts and other nice stuff.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ya I'm not a fan of blind downvotes trails as it seems you're on. If you do decide to post more I'll be sure to counter some of it if it continues.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Really?

How about I am not a fan of someone who blindly jump into drama without getting to know the background information?

Here's a short version for ya.

  1. I don't like people self voting comments on the grounds that they are "providing value".

  2. I don't like someone who behaves like I need to run by them for every downvote I cast. He couldn't be bothered to get into our channels or ask why things happen. The first response is always, "whoever downvoting is bad".

  3. I don't appreciate people equating everyone downvoting operating the same way Hivewatchers operate.

You aren't exactly the best judge of character on this chain. I would kindly ask you to not be involved in things that don't concern you.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You can kindly ask all you want. I left my opinion and it stands. nuking every comment to zero via a trail of 20 people is ridiculous.

You don't need to pass anything by anyone, nor do I.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I do so whether they have rewards or not.

It's to show my disapproval until he gets off his high horse.

0
0
0.000
avatar

u rang?
*whinnies excitedly

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ah! There you are.

0
0
0.000
avatar

one of my comments ( re: engagement) got me thinking :P and i was scrolling through all the discord servers i used to frequently be active in ( although its nomming all my ((500mb for the day )) data ) and someone mentioned this post, so i started reading, and throwing in my 2 cents worth ( and also burning VP) - but then i forgot to right click, new tab, and i cant afford the data to 'go back' XD

feel free to tag me in anything u think needs an ... nope, lost the wording ((been awake for 48hrs - a 3hr nap about 4 hrs ago that was interupted 3 times by crackheads playing doof doof music that reverbed through the walls from 3 floors above. fun times.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Take care.

0
0
0.000
avatar

i try. or is that 'im trying. i guess its all in the perspective of the viewer XD

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you Dan.

I do appreciate your consideration in this matter. It is quite ridiculous. I agree. And as you can see… here are the 2 accounts. (They just commented. LoL!)

The whale with a wanton desire to tell other legitimate owners what they can and can’t do with their accounts and stake and the bully that’s been going around doing his bidding.

Rather than allowing the code to authenticate account capability and the function of people’s accounts these individuals are busy undermining Hive utility spreading a message about DV’ing that only serves them rather than the community as a whole.

Isn’t it the code that gives investors and developers the confidence to actually invest and develop on the blockchain?

I think so (It’s what has given me the confidence to invest my time, reputation, and capital up until today.) and Yet here they are undermining Hive’s stability and invest-ability.

I believe in solutions implemented with code rather than human lead ones that can easily go against the very spirit and reason why this blockchain exists in the first place.

If we needed people calling the shots on other people why would we even bother to innovate this blockchain in the first place…?

What these people propose as “measures” meant to safe guard Hive Integrity end up being shallow hollowed out methods of keeping the blockchain static and controlled rather than innovating and growing.

Technology in general is ever changing and crypto is evolving at an even faster rate. We can’t afford implementation that propagates the group think a few misguided individuals propagate.

We need ideas, innovation, and people with the chop to make big things happen so that we can maintain our first mover advantage and out pace those looking to eat our lunch.

Hive should be a top 10 coin and so we have got to ask ourselves honestly where we need to go and what we need to do to get there… and we need to fully understand what has been holding us back.

I believe this can’t happen without fully examining how the current DV is being used to shape (police?) thought that’s different from some individuals agendas. Hive desperately needs minds that are open and the proof will always be in terms of engagement. I mean REAL engagement.

When all the best ideas are hashed out continually we will have an unfair advantage in terms of the social edge this blockchain has over other competing projects.

But it all begins with utilizing, democratizing, and decentralizing how we literally think.

This begins with the main features of the blockchain and it is my firm belief that the DV needs serious consideration to ballance out the inner workings of the blockchain.

@Comet.Ranker is my response to catalyze this while also bringing good people together who have good ideas for a better innovating and growing Hive Blockchain. It is my attempt to spread Good Wil 😉on this blockchain and get people engaged and actually talking about what’s working and what’s not working…

As a service I utilize my stake to rank comments valuing them in order of what they bring to the content that’s been posted to the blockchain.

I also use @Comet.Ranker to bring attention to posts that I believe to be important to this blockchain. Sometimes this content is light and sometimes (lately) it is some pretty tough medicine to swallow.

Back to the comment ranking I mentioned above.

As you know, we have a lot of bot comments on posts. I consider these utility comments but they shouldn’t be featured first and foremost.

These comments usually trigger first so when people look at a posts engagement… that’s what they see. Bot bots and more bots! All auto commenting. 🤖Not exactly a good look in my opinion… (First impressions matter right?)

I think that real people deserve to have the spot light when it comes to engagement on posts… so I take the time to read through the entire comment section of the posts I target with @Comet.Ranker (this can take hours depending on the post) and as stated before… I also rank those comments with UPvotes to encourage both the person taking the time to comment and the author for taking the time to engage with their audience.

In addition to this… I might also (if I have time) make an effort to leave a thoughtful/insightful comment on the post.

In the past I have ranked my own comment using @Comet.Ranker (and before the launch of that service I would occasionally rank my own comment.)

This is/was never done for the piddly rewards that might bring. I could care less about that and this should be obvious to anyone open minded enough to take a look. As I’ve said before… I have given away thousands of Hive.

I do this for visibility/readability (We all fight obscurity even on this blockchain.) and for social capital rather than rewards.

If this was some sort of sneaky way to “earn” it’s quite pathetic in terms of ROI Anyways… lol! I suspect this might be an occasion that some have taken to level accusation and attempt to discredit me. But mostly… I don’t see why my comments have to be bellow all the bot comments.

Regardless of my thoughts about this… I have since deferred ranking my own comments putting my trust in the community to do that for me. I’ve had to change my approach, even though the blockchain’s code allows for this functionality, because their are people loosing their marbles about things like this… 🙄

Still…

There are people labeling this as “comment farming” when really it is “comment ranking” as detailed in the #CometWeek White Paper.

And these people using human intervention rather than truly innovating at a code level would have me go off the blockchain into their private chambers to answer to them for how I utilize my stake? I think not.

How many new people signing up for a Hive account will understand all of this hostility?

Why would they go off the blockchain to answer for things the blockchain allows in its code?

They didn’t sign up for a Discord account… they signed up for a Hive account.

…and speaking of which, none of them signed any agreements when they launched their Hive account granting them ownership access to the full functionality of their account and the stake they decide to PowerUP… So why then are these people using the DV to force themselves on other owners on the blockchain?

This can never scale and it’s not a solid blueprint for the development of a healthy community of innovating, open minded people.

This is a method for group thinking our users and reducing our numbers to the lowest common denominator.

We need to do better than this if we want to do all that we aim to with this blockchain.

I believe this is a once in a lifetime opportunity… and I’m not going to stand by idle while static minds perpetuate this sort of abuse.

I won’t stand for it within terms of my own accounts and enterprises and I won’t stand for it destroying all the hard work we have all been putting into getting people to this blockchain.

This absolutely MUST change and I’m willing to fall on my sword in front of everyone on Hive to get the message across.

I’m saying all this, Dan, because I sincerely respect you and what you are doing for and on this blockchain. I know that, as entrepreneurs, you and I see the world in very similar ways.

I’m also saying this because I know that these people want to pull you aside into their private groups… but I know your one who can think for yourself.

But I wanted you to know more of my side of the story.

So again…

Thank you for taking the time to read up on what is happening with the DV and what is happening with my particular situation.

Thank you as well for being willing to step into the gaps and make your intent known.

This means a lot to me. 🙏

Sincerely,

-Wil

0
0
0.000
avatar

But I wanted you to know more of my side of the story.

Speaking of, how goes the litigation? You know, that whole thing when you responded to a Twitter conversation last month involving myself, @acidyo & @theycallmedan about downvotes.

After I replied to you with, "People might take your arguments seriously Wil, if you weren't championing those (including yourself) DVed for plagiarism/reward pool abuse." you replied saying, "That’s a bit of defamation Traci!"

Then you tagged a lawyer saying, "are you seeing this? Looking forward to our regular meeting on Friday! Lots to talk about (as you can see)."

So when I can expect to be served with the court papers?

0
0
0.000
avatar

@Janan.Jarrah is a lawyer I meet with weekly (over the last 9+ years). She’s a valued member of my business T.E.A.M and, if you must know, we are always talking about all things business and investing. She is very good at what she does and has my full trust and respect built on many years of working closely with each other.

This isn’t a threat of litigation (at this point) but should be considered as a heads up. People with qualifications (on and off the blockchain) are watching closely to see what transpires on this blockchain. We are breaking ground and pioneering new and better ways to human (at least I think that’s what we are doing…) and so what we do and how we do it sets precedent. This is why this is important.

I consult weekly with my legal advisor… as I believe anyone truly wanting to innovate and BUIDL in this space should.

Your attempts to discredit me publicly are only showing people who you are.

I’m the one standing on solid ground. Made up labels and lies only go so far and we can not found the blockchain on this subjective and opinionated mindset.

I don’t plagiarize (never have never will… I have to much pride in my content to do something so belittling.) so lumping me in there with people who do is insulting and could be considered defamation. (Should we put that to the test by asking the community what they think?)

As for accusations of “abusing the reward pool” with my own poweredUP stake… Who are we kidding. We all know that this is a completely contentious and subjective concept perpetrated by those who want to control and in effect “own” other peoples accounts by normalizing and justifying their particular use of the DV.

This could even be considered abusing our layer 0 in order to “protect the reward pool”. Does this not deserve some merit as a potential harmful practice?

So who gets to actually “decide” what “abusing the reward pool” actually means?

Let me guess…

Some shadowy figures who are imposing themselves on the other owners of this blockchain via the current undeveloped DV mechanism.

If we continue to fight amongst ourselves about this sort of thing… it won’t be long before we don’t have a reward pool to fight over.

As you can see…

This is complete and utter bullocks and counterproductive to actual growth, progress, and innovation on this blockchain.

We could almost make a case that anyone arguing these sorts of issues and attempting to rip at other peoples reputations in this way is actually harbouring allegiances to “something” other than this blockchain.

What that “something” is might come into question as actions do speak louder than words.

This method of shallow inquest and accusation is very harmful (not just to me but this entire blockchain) and is clearly founded on untruths and made up labels.

You have said you peace about what you think as have I.

Seeing as your positioning yourself in the way that you are… I have nothing more to say to you.

At this point… what you have to say isn’t constructive to the topic.

Your attempting to attack my person rather than add to the conversation in a beneficial way.

The people who know me and have known me over the last 4+ years will know better.

But thank you for announcing exactly who you are and what you are capable of.

@wil.metcalfe

0
0
0.000
avatar

Some shadowy figures who are imposing themselves on the other owners of this blockchain via the current undeveloped DV mechanism.

Most of the time when I hit the downvote button, I've either commented on the post with links to plagiarized content, or someone else has already commented & I'm helping to remove the rewards. The times that don't comment are because I'd already made numerous comments previously about the theft of content (or someone else had), so the account was well aware of why the downvote was happening.

I've also commented (without downvoting) on a number of posts with plagiarism, advising the person that since Hive monetizes content, it operates differently from other social media. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, especially to newer accounts, and try to guide them so they understand how things work around here.

Not sure how all that fits with your shadowy cabal narrative, but I'm sure you'll figure something out.

Oh, and I'm not worried what people think about me - if I were, I wouldn't have publicly stood behind the plagiarism reports I made regarding a community leader (who I won't name, so I won't get accused of "bullying" again). The fact that they copy/pasted & spun content for months, if not years, yet people like yourself still support them - yes as you said, actions speak louder than words.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh yeah, now I remember.

Blatant hypocrisy is another reason why I started downvoting him...among other things, like kowtowing to whales while belittling those with smaller wallets.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Uhhh huh. Is that so… well! Looks like your work speaks for it’s self. 🤷‍♂️

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

sigh
Alright Traci… I have explained this in detail already but let’s go another round around the merry-go-round shall we?

It seems that you have association and representation mixed up.

Let’s put this in another way:


Hypothetical Situation 1

Let’s say that, for some unforeseen reason you managed to (knowingly or unknowingly) get yourself in hot water and break the law in the country you reside. (What I’m about to discuss would be even more critical if the situation I am about to describe were to happen abroad but for simplicity we will keep this example to your local jurisdiction.)

You stand accused and must represent yourself because you made the decision to forego the trial solely on your own merit. You think that you have good reason to believe that you can plead ignorance at worst or innocence at best. However… you are inexperienced and misinformed on how the legal system actually works and what your position currently is.

Things end up turning out badly, as you might imagine.

As it turns out… it would have been better to have some sort of representation. Someone who could show the court a different way of thinking about the incident that took place. Someone that could, at the very least, convince the court to be more lenient on its measures, fitting the judgment to the actual miss step.


Hypothetical Situation 2

[Same exact situation as above… except one small difference.]

This time you are able to procure representation.

Someone to go to bat for you.

Because the representation has experience they know what questions to ask, when to ask them, what order to ask them, and how to ask them.

The conversation in the court room is no longer lopsided and because of this it is discovered that, in actuality, the law that you “broke” was meant to be applied within a whole different context. So the accusations against you, although they did apply in one instance of the law, the law as a whole gives the accused grounds for a significantly lighter ruling.

Because the representation was able to engage all aspects of the case and fully extrapolate discussion around how the situation initially unfolded rather than jail time you are given a small fine in the neighbourhood of $100 US and thereby avoid having your name dragged through the mud and time in prison.

It’s a win for you… but it’s also a win for the entire community because, for the most part, you are someone who cares and is doing a lot of good. Your intentions were good even if the results weren’t the best.

And so the judgment now fits the “crime” but this would never have happened without the representative’s role as the dialog in the court room would have been in the complete and utter control of those accusing you.

A correct verdict, an intelligent one, based on all aspects of the situation and the law would never have been deemed.


So as you can see Traci… there is value in stepping into the gaps and resolving controversial concerns with some form of representation and because of the nature of Hive’s decentralize construct… these are the sorts of things that true owners might (should?) be willing to do. No one can say that I am getting involved where I don’t belong.

And as it turns out, the truth of matters are often not so cut and dry/straightforward so arriving at a proper conclusion is best made when their is someone to intercede as an intermediary.

This is what I did (and have been doing on occasion) and I will continue to do when and where I see best.

I don’t like kangaroo courts, witch hunts, or mob action.

In order to avoid this…

HOW we arrive at our decisions matter.

Just because one group of people decides one way… doesn’t automatically determine someone’s guilt and it certainly doesn’t determine that the “punishment” fits the “crime”.

Could their be a wrong done?

Certainly (advertently or inadvertently) but that doesn’t mean that how we go about that determination doesn’t matter… and it also doesn’t mean that what is ultimately decided fits the incident as a correct measure taken.

The truth needs to be determined with care and consideration if we are to preserve the freedom our foundations are built upon here on the Hive Blockchain.

Representation with an eye to how things are determined is where this all begins.

Finesse is needed and so examining closely how things work up close… it’s vitally important.

This is why and what I am championing.

New and better ways to human require attention to detail and open intuitive minds that want to examine all aspects of how the blockchains working and what needs to be improved.

As well (on a more personal note) you might have noticed…

As soon as you levelled your labels and accusations against me… as soon as you attacked my character… you then had to defend your own.

I hope that we are now on the same page (about this part).

As for the DV issue and those using it for harm… that is an entirely different topic of which I have already clearly defined my position.

Have a good day Traci.

@wil.metcalfe
P.S. For all those wondering what incident Traci is referring to in her comment above here is the link to @purepinay’s post where I decided to step in and try to do some good. The comment(s) I made have been voted to the very bottom of the comments section but I believe they are extremely valid. @appreciator upvoted on the comment… and the shadowy figure we all know as AZ downvoted it (along with his tribe of bullies). Interestingly enough… @appreciator then DV’ed AZ’s comment.

Shots fired? Yes… Signs that this DV in its current structure is inadequate and needs further development so that it can be used to actually control for the things we do not want on this blockchain rather than utilizing it to bring owner against owner.

The DV is, in my opinion, now up for serious review.

To see what transpired follow the link:
https://ecency.com/hivelife/@purepinay/a-valuable-lesson

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nope, not at all confused on the difference between the two, but thanks for assuming I needed such a loquacious lesson. A quote from WC Fields seems appropriate here - "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

And nope again - I wasn't referring to Gil, as I am not the person who reported her for plagiarism. I simply suggested she address the issue, rather than ignore it and pretend nothing happened.

I'm not even going to bother with the whole, "shots fired" ridiculousness as I have better uses for my time. I'm only responding to this to clarify my part in the Gil situation, as I didn't want my silence to be seen as confirmation that I'd reported her. Had I seen it first I would have, but I didn't.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Perspectives run both ways… it appeared to me that you didn’t know the difference… at least where it comes down to it with your judgments against my character.

Think whatever you may Traci… I think we all know where some of the BS is flowing from.

Labels, lies, and blatant disparaging by people who don’t really know someone… and done in a public way so as to stake one’s reputation against another is no way to prove an intellectual point.

My point has been made.

I have nothing more to say.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Why does someone need to meet up with a lawyer weekly? Did he typo psychiatrist?

0
0
0.000
avatar

They didn’t sign up for a Discord account… they signed up for a Hive account.

No kidding.

If DISCORD is so great, why not give HIVE the SAME FUNCTIONALITY (invite-only-&-admin-options) ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Just wanted to add my experience with wil, he's literally all talk and no substance nor integrity.

I do agree that downvote trails should be kept on posts, though, on comments it's not a good look.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It used to not do comments. Something changed with the settings on hive.vote side.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I am not all talk. I have been here on this blockchain for over 4 years and have contributed in many ways… not just with my invested capital but also within the fitness community here on Hive and also in terms of engagement. I have also given away thousands of Hive via my accounts @wil.metcalfe, @adventureready, @beachready, and @comet.ranker. How does this add up to “all talk and no substance”?

My integrity is intact… and what you are doing to attempt to discredit me… it shows plainly who you are ethically and morally.

You don’t know me in the slightest nor have you ever truly taken it upon yourself to examine the other side of the coin Acid.
But hey… I’m just glad to know who you are and what your about.

Social capital has a way of compounding both positively and negatively… and from what I can see from what your doing here (directly attacking my character) I already know what side of the equation you are on.

I‘m disappointed… but not surprised.

0
0
0.000
avatar

nuking every comment to zero via a trail of 20 people is ridiculous.

100% THIS.

0
0
0.000
avatar

No Dan. I assure you that they are not blind DV. They are highly targeted and directed specifically at Will. There are valid reasons. I can explain more in private, but honestly I don't think it is worth our time.

Trust me Dan. I am doing is for a long time. Also I am a reasonable person with a stable stake.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Then why DV e.g. this post to zero?

https://peakd.com/pob/@frot/all-your-email-are-belong

The only explantion I have is that you did it for personal reasons against user @frot ? and not because of the content of the post. That is never something that should be done... or what is your explanation?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Are you frot? :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

no :D

0
0
0.000
avatar

Then don’t worry about it :)

It’s none of your business.

Have a good day.

0
0
0.000
avatar

well I think that's a little too easy. Say, if it was personal and I was the target, could I then so easily shrug it off? While this is the wild west, we have to establish some kind of protocol otherwise it's just a dog eat dog mentality.

Explaining the reason for a downvote would be a start, and also as Dan pointed out zeroing the rewards is very questionable. You definitely have the "right" to downvote whomever you like, but again, downvoting a neutral post (from the example above) with 100% as a whale essentially means to "censor" someone. Just be aware of that

0
0
0.000
avatar

No, not censor. Redistribution of rewards.

More money in your pocket.

That’s the explanation.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It really doesn't and many downvotes on disagreement of rewards are often cast later on to avoid the trending "attention". Of course those who are against downvotes will use this to their defense too "they downvoting late so people can't counter vote due to penalty or not seeing it".

tl;dr, there's no winning with authors of posts you downvote, so having to explain to each and everyone why leads to endless arguments and discussions wasting everyone time. 99% of the time it's always about the rewards and not about any form of "censorship".

0
0
0.000
avatar

yeah I could imagine it would get tedious making an explanation every time. But my point is that it would at least make the process more transparent. I mean, we could also not care about DV and just use it when we subjectively or objectively feel like it. But I would certainly like to know the reason when someone is downvoting me (especially when it happens repeatedly). I have seen many posts where there is no "objective" reason (like the one mentioned above), which then seems more like an abuse of power.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah I get what you're saying, people need to get used that mostly (hopefully) it's just for disagreement of rewards, else you'll also find hivewatchers on you if it's otherwise.

With our OCD project we do make an effort to let people know why they're being downvoted when it's about abuse/plag, that way we can also reward the finder with a vote for their time on the comment. Other than that I guess people can also calculate why by checking who and what that account is known for downvoting in the past, something sites like Reddit don't give you the privilege to ever find out behind their closed databases.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'll support OCD with a bit of a delegation :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I'd rather you not support hive.curation at all for the exchange in votes.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Look at this user for instance: https://peakd.com/@nomad-magus

delegating to hive.curation and receiving votes up to 10x his own value in return. It's the definition of vote-trading same as certain accounts do in a more strategic manner where they vote same 9 people once per day and they vote them back with similar stake.

Do you think that user is bringing value to Hive and proof of brain? Barely any comments, just constant posts barely anyone reads and they all well rewarded while he doesn't need to share his votes around with others.

0
0
0.000
avatar

well his posts are original and he seems to be sharing things that he is interested in. Many users don't have a lot of engagement with their posts (which is probably still due to the low number of users on Hive and obviously also due to the content of the post). But you are right; it is not PoB.

To be honest getting 12% from hive.curation isn't really worth it as well, considering that everybody is getting about 10-11% currently.

Alright, I'll stop my delegation :)

On a side note, if you are interested in helping the #lovetheclouds community out a bit , you could upvote the contest every now and then ;) It is getting about 20-30 entries every week and the prize pool has been hovering around 17 Hive.

0
0
0.000
avatar

We have an initiative for niche communities not in our incubation but I guess most curators focus on longer posts with a decent amount of effort.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I see, yeah makes sense. But I think supporting contests in general might be a good idea as this really does support many users which is a net positive for everyone

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

OCD, just like Curangel, often downvotes content that calls out corporate fraud & organized crime, the dangers of mRNA gene modification, and global bio-terrorism.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Why are you spreading lies?

0
0
0.000
avatar

He's telling the truth, you are the one lying bastard, the commander in chief of Discord useful idiots

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

What you are describing… the “normalizing” of the Downvote… this is NOT freedom. It’s oversight and is signalling to the entire crypto marketplace the entirely wrong message.

Layer 1 needs to preserve the freedoms of ownership. As it is the DV can be used to “own” another account financially irrespective of the account holders rights and even good intent for the blockchain.

This mentality perpetuates an unfriendly and unmarketable Hive Blockchain and ultimately undermines the utility, value, and investment underlying the blockchain.

Our foundations matter because this is what freedom is built upon. A social environment like this is not one that can compound the communities ideas to their fullest.

This is only generating unneeded controversy and that is going to end up being the catalyst to driving away bright minds and their ideas.

We need to rethink all of this…

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to reimagine new and better ways to human.

Missing the train on another Bitcoin Bull Run could be a huge blow to this blockchains ultimate success.

Please reconsider the DV as a main feature.

I believe that if we do not… this isn’t going to end well.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Honestly, back when I had a considerable stake in a web 2.0 community, we would openly censor anyone shilling our direct competitors on our site. No dissent. No second thoughts. Our house, our rules.

Without offerring my POV on the specific case (I openly enquired about the comepetitor somewhere else ITT) being right/wrong/fair/unfair (not so easy when everyone is a stakeholder), I just want to challenge your premise there is no objective reason for a stakeholder to DV the linked post.

I can agree your scenario happens elsewhere, though.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

This level of arrogance is uncalled for and is outright disgusting.

Everyone deserves the common decency and respect as we are all humans talking to other human beings…

To talk down to someone, like this and others, is an example of using capital to dehumanize people…

This, I will remind you, is a social blockchain… and there is nothing good about this level of social interaction.

It should be seen for what it is and shunned.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Thanks for your comments. As a professional systems engineer for over 20 years and having been witness to censorship of social media before Facebook even existed, I have been focused onto this topic since the beginning. I received death threats for sharing scientific papers that exposed the flaws in the mainstream vaccine narrative years before COVID19 and have fully expected what is happening on Hive today - I just didn't know exactly how it would manifest or through which people.

I have been working with others on a layer 2 solution to this problem for a while, but unfortunately it is on pause due to a personal issue with a key team member. Anyone creating a layer 2 solution needs to, most likely, air drop the tokens to the community in order to ensure both decentralisation and avoidance of security regulations in the US. It is wise to avoid air dropping tokens to those who are known to censor arbitrarily and since it is quite possible that earning from activity on Hive might predominately occur through layer 2 in future, it is extremely short sighted of the censors to take action now that will result in them being omitted from key air drops in future. No-one ever said censors were smart thinkers and actually, throughout history, they are ALWAYS shown to be on the wrong side of ethics and morality - leading to their ultimate demise long term.

I am more than happy to work on any layer 2 solutions that show promise. I participated in the proofofbrain tribe for a while but their site is down, was never developed and apparently the creator is gone (I don't know who that was). I looked into launching a layer 2 project via Hive Engine, but the cost is a bit high for me at present and ultimately it is a somewhat centralised system too. I look forward to the SPK network's solutions soon and also your own project - let me know if you want any help, I'm happy to provide feedback or professional services if needed.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Bring on the day that you can use open source content gateways and content policies to craft your own front end experience which is virtually I influenced by the hive trending algorithm. This issue will be solved by multiple front ends running multiple content gateways, content policies and different trending algos. It’s coming. There is little that can be done to stop it. Just patience required

0
0
0.000
avatar

id love to see 'trending' about the vote count , as opposedto 'who has the biggest bags'

0
0
0.000
avatar

Should I say that the decentralized systems are also centralized. Governed by a few. The whales are mighty after all. They can give and snatch as per their desires. They have the power to threat and they potentially do and ultimately can achieve their desirable outcomes.

I heard someone saying, "There is no law without a flaw." That's the fact, ha. To overcome that flaw there is a need of ethical and moral building that is something that never accomplishes fully.

I have never been in favor of subjective downvoting. There should be some objective standards for it like plagiarism or clear spamming, or any standard already specified by the platforms or communities.

Layer 2 has its own risks as you stated. It is not a reliable method of gaining the desirable outcome. I don't really know what technically should be, but the problem be solved at layer one.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am practically not really knowledgeable about anything but I have a simple question?

Is it possible for the downvote system to change the post rewards to 100% curation back to the authors who voted it while the publisher don’t get any author rewards since his post is being downvoted.

That way, those who voted the post are not penalized for doing so. What do you think?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Also @trostparadox at this point this post is showing $196

And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.

My direct question to you is this:

Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point? Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?

0
0
0.000
avatar

And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.

That is incorrect. 95% of the quoted text was my own, from this comment, which currently has $0.58 in pending rewards.


Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point?

This question should be directed at those who voted for it. They are the ones assigning value. However, from a market-based perspective, assuming free will and free exchange (as in, as long as those who voted for it were not somehow coerced or duped into doing so), then I would unequivocally say, "No." Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.


Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?

Yes, and that is exactly what I would expect. I post rather infrequently. I only post when I have something important to announce or when I have something significant to say -- something that will either be significantly beneficial to potential readers or something that warrants considerable attention and/or engagement or debate.

As such, whenever I post, I expect it to be above-average both in terms of quality and importance and (hopefully) engagement. However, that is not something I can definitively know a priori. As stated above, I began writing this as a mere comment. After spending well over an hour formulating thoughts and organizing them, I realized that this was something that needed its own space, to generate its own awareness and its own engagement. And, in retrospect, it looks like that was the correct decision on my part, because in the marketplace of ideas, there seems to be some resonance, either with the ideas themselves, or with the need for engagement and debate about the topic, or both.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This question should be directed at those who voted for it.

Yes, AND those who didn't, like me for example, and others as well.

And yes, you don't post frequently, and that must be taken into account. Also your post is thoughtful and NOT a rant. You have positive things to contribute.

Yet, I do think your post is over-rewarded compared to average original posts on hive. I am glad to see that you agree.

Good. I think we are communicating. You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.

I am quite confident of my understanding of how things work, technically.

From a social standpoint, however, things are much more nuanced. I don't think anyone can truthfully claim to fully understand "how this blockchain actually works. Socially." (italics added) -- because there is no 'one way' that people socially interact.

The social aspects no doubt require a more circumspect consideration. From my vantage point, there are two competing 'worldviews' that greatly affect folks' social interaction on this blockchain. In large part, those differences depend upon the timing of an individual's arrival -- those who have been on the blockchain for years (like you) tend to view DVs as happenstance (i.e. not a big deal, whether given or received) and tend to view 'guarding the reward pool' as some sort of calling or duty or responsibility. By contrast, those who are relatively new (like me) tend to view DVs as toxic and counterproductive and give no or limited thought to 'guarding the reward pool'.

Although I do my best to see both perspectives, I cannot deny that I have my own biases. And, whereas my long-term goal is to see the platform grow and expand, I strongly favor a set of 'rules' that limits the amount of 'social damage' that any one accountholder can inflict on others, especially on others who don't share his/her worldview.

With all that said, many newcomers are likely to share my biases. My perspective is and has been focused on ensuring that those newcomers encounter a 'welcoming' place and that they desire to stay and become more and more engaged as time progresses. Subjective DVs very quickly turn what would otherwise be a pleasant experience into an unpleasant one.

To that end, my near-term goal is to provide a Layer 2 solution where newbies who share my worldview can arrive and thrive and not worry about subjective downvotes.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

First, I must say your thought process is spot on! It is rare to find that these days from a relative new comer.

I don’t claim to be an expert on social aspects of hive. But you are correct I was there when we separated from steem. I was with the core members who wrote the code, although I am not a coder. Yes your understanding on how we interpret the upvote and downvote is accurate. As that is the way it was written in the original white paper and we stand by it.

To us, that’s the law of this blockchain.

Again I am so glad that you understood. I am ecstatic that you understood! :)

PS. I upvoted your comment above at 100%. Is it over-rewarded? Most certainly. But I wanted to communicate my happiness. We rarely enjoy small things in life these days. My vote is just that, small things in life. If someone DV and adjust that please don't feel bad. It is within their rights as a stakeholder.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am glad we can share a little mutual understanding.

Although I do not purport to fully understand the 'code is law' mindset, I can say that if I had been one of the early arrivers, I would probably be much more closely aligned with that worldview than the one I currently have.

In any event, I believe that, by and large, we share the same goals. It's just that we disagree on the means and methods to achieve those goals.

That is why I have chosen to focus my efforts on Layer 2. If I can create a Layer 2 solution that is appealing to others who share my worldview, then I see three possible outcomes:

  1. not many flock to the Layer 2 solution and it dies on the vine,
  2. the Layer 2 solution flourishes and there ends up being some meaningful lessons-learned that lead to Layer 1 improvements,
  3. the Layer 2 solution flourishes, but nothing changes substantively with Layer 1.

I am okay with any of the three. My hope and preference would be for outcome #2. However, if we end up with outcome #3, the censorship-resistance features of Layer 1 will continue to provide foundational benefits to the Layer 2 solution, and any disagreements about Layer 1 downvotes and Layer 1 reward pools become irrelevant (to me and the members of the new Layer 2 community). And, those who find themselves unhappy with subjective downvotes on Layer 1 will have a place where they can go -- a place built on a firm foundation (something Blurt and sites like it cannot offer, imho).

0
0
0.000
avatar

There are lot of L2 options available already. The trouble becomes an even smaller subset of people and more circle voting. Look at Leo. Look at POB in the early days maybe even now. You simply don’t have enough things to vote. Most of us are leaning towards the fact that curation dependent economy is dying or already dead. Incentive must be placed in something else.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Most of us are leaning towards the fact that curation dependent economy is dying or already dead. Incentive must be placed in something else.

Could be. Since I am relatively new to the platform, I have not yet reached that conclusion. However, I cannot dismiss the possibility that you may be right. My gut currently tells me otherwise, though.

Time, of course, will tell.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have been pondering over the last several days about your ideas for a layer 2 approach. After much thought I do believe that you are indeed correct in that this would likely be the best way to rapidly innovate solutions for layer 1. I know, however, that their are people who would like to keep layer 2 on layer 2 so as to keep static how layer 1 is implemented in their favour at the expense of the entire Hive community. These people want innovation to happen at layer 2 and only at layer 2 and will do everything they can (from controlling what people see on the front page to the ranking of one’s voice in the comments section) to that end. Development on layer 2 justifies (in their minds) the merits of the current layer 1 structure so, of course, they are more than happy to encourage this sort of development. It’s smoke and mirrors however… a distraction from the disfunction happening on the foundational layer. Can we push through and make a layer 2 happen on the base layer? I hope so…🤞 but I guess time will tell. I see a lot of risk in developing on layer 2 with the current social climate.

0
0
0.000
avatar

this would likely be the best way to rapidly innovate solutions for layer 1

Layer 2 experiments are probably the only way to innovate solutions for Layer 1.

And, to be quite honest, I probably can't argue persuasively against the inertia that keeps Layer 1 from innovating. Getting something wrong on Layer 2 is only costly for those who dared to experiment. Making a dramatic change to Layer 1 and getting it wrong could end up very difficult (and perhaps impossible) to undue the unintended or unforeseen damage. With that being said, there are some changes (experiments) that have to occur on Layer 1, such as adjustments to the 'haircut rule'.

In any event, the key to implementing any substantive changes to Layer 1 (especially with respect to the social media aspects of Layer 1) will require 'proving' the soundness of those changes on Layer 2 first. Even then, there will still likely be hesitation to implement changes to Layer 1. The irony here is the fact that a hugely successful Layer 2 solution will probably mean the change is not needed on Layer 1.

0
0
0.000
avatar

"Code is law," especially when used in reference to a blockchain where the code can be changed by less than two dozen people (all based on Stake and nothing else), is the same as saying "Might makes right."

This claim has been used since 2016, even though the code keeps changing. Weird, huh?

0
0
0.000
avatar

sorry i find a little flaw in this particular line -
Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.

u got hit with a trafalgar, haejin/rancho, etc vote, it then has a 20+ person trail, and then some of those have another 20 person trail attached that mirror votes.... so to assume that all those that voted actually READ the article is a bit too much for me to be able to believe - jussayin ;)
(had to go doube check i wasnt talking out my ass first ) XD
please dont nuke XD

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes, at the time I believe the vote count was a little over 320, so I was hedging that number a bit. Even so, it is hard to say exactly how many "individual minds" are truly engaged here.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Its probably worth much more

0
0
0.000
avatar

Well darling, you have already made your call :)

You voted this post at 100%, that is the best you can do.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Flaunting in this way dehumanizes the platform. It also signals to everyone outside looking in… that there are inherent problems with this blockchain… but your so obsessed with your stake that I think you have lost the forest for the trees on what’s important for this blockchain.

This is a social platform where everyone’s voice should be recognized and respected. Stake isn’t something that can be used to discredit someone else’s voice and belittling people publicly. Talking down to people puts the entire blockchain in a bad light.

We all have a voice. We all are important to how this social blockchain works. Social Capital counts just as much as Financial Capital does and minimizing someone in this way is extremely disrespectful not only to the individual you are talking to but also to the entire community of owners that on this blockchain.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I feel this post is well-rewarded given the professionalism and information on governance that is presented. When you include the engagement for this post, I think it's under-rewarded. It gets very tiring reading emotional rants about voting and the influence these types of posts can garner. I feel like I've lost months of work from only a couple of tirades.

The engagement alone is worth the value and serves as a basis for how people should communicate. I mean, how many articles are there that just discusses the system and its rules with the likes of yourself, trost, dan, and anyone else who wishes to discuss their views on the matter. There's no animosity, just a discussion of what is and the plans of what could be.

This is the kind of example of an article/engagement I'll be passing on to newcomers for recommended reading.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar

I agree. You can read my conversation with the author.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It is difficult to accept you agree with the last line given that two hours earlier you had berated someone else for socially engaging with the post beyond pressing the vote button (to be fair, I am not saying the attempt ended up productive).

Staying on the topic of over-rewarding while avoiding cluttering the convo you are referencing, I decided to follow your advice on enjoying small things in life and upvoted the comment you considered over-rewarded. It might not be worth $20 to people who prefer makeup tutorials, flat earth or particle physics but that does not make downvoting it morally acceptable (whether it is 20->0 or 5000->4999) as long as the system is set up (knowingly or incidentally) so that challenging the DV is disproportionately more costly than casting the DV.

Is it morally acceptable to DV a comment that earns $1 for posting "I am in" in a giveaway thread? I do not know. It is still valuable to two accounts (which hopefully translates to two people). I think it is not but I understand I am taking a moral risk whenever I DV it.

You do the same with your DVs so I whenever I disagree with them (verbally - I wish I could do more but I cannot), it does not mean I disrespect your opinion nor your stake. I am open to be voted out of the platform if my POV is not compatibile with the rules. I am actually happy to get an honest feedback like that and move on, that is how life works.

Clarification: azircon has never DVed me IIRC, my reputation value was set up by one single account unrelated to this thread (although I got some more DVs that are not significant for that) and trostparadox had honestly tried to counter the DV before he concluded that "I deserved it".

For a legitimate content creator on a healthy platform, receiving a subjective DV is a blessing as it makes regular people feel bad for them and the emotions are going to fuel a back-fire. Hive 25.0 is not healthy platform because the "Countering DVs costs money" signs are on every wall. People challenging DVing in general while deriving their arguments from the specifics of the current flawed system are fooling themselves. Fingers crossed for Hive 26.0.

Quick note in case TP happens to read this: "Guarding the reward pool" includes both "guarding against abuse" and "guarding against my opposition". It is not different to the way other forms of public funds are being governed in practice.

Sorry if it feels like a rant. I know noone is interested in that (neither am I). I am trying to pass views from the land of shadow-ban. I wish you guys could lend a negative reputation account for a month, it is a refreshing experience if you can stand it.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Why are still complaining about your reputation?
You are not "shadow-banned", your thoughts are written in the chain, just your reputation is down.
You started your crusade or your social experiment -as you called it- with some bloggers mainly from the D-A-CH- area, you were insulting people from other countries, which are writing posts in a language you dont speak as far as i know, you were telling stupid conspiracy bullshit and you made wrong accusations about the "most toxic"-as you called it- community from switzerland, austria and germany, you still give constantly downvotes without any discussions due to your personal blacklist and you were ignoring a lot of peace offers.
So, i asked you many times, whats wrong with you?
Think you would like to you see in a role as a poor shadow banned victim on a crusade, but you are no victim, you are the actor in this game.
Eyerybody, who wants, can check this out.
Best regards.

0
0
0.000
avatar

100%. It has become tiring and it also has distracted many from what could be. Hive talking about Hive shows that we are not yet mature and these could be considered growing pains. We have not arrived yet and have a long way to go to innovate Hive to where it should be. A top 10 coin. The longer we take to establish social norms with actual code… the worse off this blockchain and it’s community becomes. Every one of us has made a decision to trade our perfectly good Bitcoin for Hive. We have done so with the expectation that Hive (in the long run) will be something the world needs just as much as the Bitcoin we traded it for. But I have a feeling missing another Bitcoin bull run is going to reduce our numbers significantly… and right now it’s all hands on deck so how we treat our own does matter.

This is a post that’s extremely valuable… and unfortunately so. The sooner we switch from talking about Hive to using Hive to talk about what people care about (more widely) the sooner Hive will reach mass adoption and become what it could be.

Before that can happen… the DV and it’s current use needs thought and innovation.

Thank you for your comment.

-Wil

0
0
0.000
avatar

Rather new on the hive, what's the difference between layer 1 and layer 2?

0
0
0.000
avatar

layer one is Hive, layer two are community tokens

0
0
0.000
avatar

Layer 1 is the base blockchain (i.e. "Hive"). All posts and comments reside on Layer 1, along with all account-level transactions (e.g. who follows whom).

However, there is currently another blockchain that runs parallel to Layer 1, called Hive-Engine. It is a 'Layer 2' blockchain. Other Layer 2 blockchains are under development. At present, though, Hive-Engine is the only Layer 2 chain.

Layer 1 tokens include HIVE (which can be staked as HIVE Power) and HBD. Layer 1 rewards are issued as some combination of HIVE, HP, and HBD.

Layer 2 tokens (also called H-E tokens, short for Hive-Engine tokens), include everything else (go here to see a list of them), such as LEO, POB, DEC, SPS, BEE, APE, etc. You post 'on Layer 2' whenever you use certain tags, such as leofinance and proofofbrain, but those tags just tell Hive-Engine to reward the post with Layer 2 tokens in addition to Layer 1 tokens.

Also, a single post (and all its related comments) can earn multiple Layer 2 tokens at the same time (depending on which tags were included in the original post). For example, this post (and all comments and sub-comments) is earning POB, BEE, PAL, NEOXAG, and ARCHON.

So, if you join a Layer 2 community (also called a 'tribe') and everyone in that tribe only owns the Layer 2 token associated with that tribe, and no one who owns HIVE (or HP) ever votes for any of the posts associated with that tribe, then although the posts reside on Layer 1, there are no Layer 1 rewards being issued to the author of that post, or to its curators, or to any commenters. In that sense, the Layer 2 tribe can essentially operate in complete oblivion to Layer 1. In fact, the Layer 2 tribe could even have its own login system such that Layer 2 tribe members might not even know that they are posting to Hive. LeoFinance has an onboarding feature like that. You could conceivably join LeoFinance (using their Twitter onboarding process) and post and interact without ever realizing you are actually doing so 'on Hive'.

0
0
0.000
avatar

@trostparadox thanks for educating us...now i understand how layer 1 and layer 2 works ...i am looking forward to your layer 2 community that you want to create.. ..


Posted via proofofbrain.io

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

And I’ll just jump in here. Layer 0 is the community that makes this a social blockchain. Speaking of which! It’s always good to see new people here on the blockchain! Welcome and thank you for asking this question. I think there could be lots of other people wondering the same things you are. 👍

Keeping asking the questions and commenting. Your on the right track! 🙂

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is a fantastic post and I don't think when DV's were established it took into consideration early investors, Hive Influencers and the disparity between bloggers.

Fortunately this is a Delegated Proof Of Stake chain with elected representatives looks like @theycallmedan is onto it which is great. I will note that alot of whales do get down voted it's just that the DVs don't have the same weight.

But what we don't want happening is a Tit for tat exchange and I personally don't like the position of "don't like it down vote" because this is often misused as personal attacks. The amount of actual flat earthe content, fake news and deluded musings that are profitable are not being downvoted. Noting I don't down vote that stuff either (each to their own)

But there needs to be a mechanism that prevents or at least limits bad behaviour.

And that is upto the witnesses to lead.

Great post!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Congratulations @trostparadox! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with the following badge:

Post with the highest payout of the day.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Bee ready for the 2nd Hive Power Up Month challenge!
Trick or Treat - Share your scariest story and get your Halloween badge
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
0
0
0.000
avatar

the "problem" is FREE downvotes

no trial

no appeal

"they" tell you to beg for mercy

0
0
0.000
avatar

LOL... before opening this post, i really should have thought about how much data it was gonna cost me XD .... 4:15 am and im already half way through my 500mb allocation for the day ( $2 a day optus) - looks like its gonna be a $4 day. (up to 1gb data for the day )
oh well such is life.

0
0
0.000
avatar

If you do start a new layer 2 hive group let me know.

0
0
0.000