RE: STEEM: The Disproportionate Power Balance with Downvotes
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The way I describe SBI is as a vote subscription service. Exactly like bidbots, there is no proof of brain. Similar to bidbots, you are buying votes, except you are just paying now for future votes. The main difference is with a bidbot, you get some, they get the rest. With SBI you get some and someone you named (perhaps your alt) gets the rest. It's vote-buying, it's just a less toxic form of vote-buying. SBI wasn't the only honest vote-buying service that would blacklist and ban really bad users either, OCDB only allowed whitelisted users to vote and quite a few would remove votes of abusers with enough pressure.
That said, I like SBI. I agree it is good for onboarding new users. However, I do wish that they would create their own token and payout in that. If you cannot create your own token for such a service, in the end of the day it is a tax on the platform. In other words, SBI is taxing everyone who doesn't use SBI. We didn't vote for it.
Still, I think it is a good tax. If it was put to a poll on the SPS/@steem.dao, it would probably beat the return proposal or any no easily. I don't know too many people who are actually against it. Most people are only against the actions of certain individuals abusing it who are banned. I say this as someone who wrote a post that helped SBI adapt to a post EIP hard fork consensus.
Less related to SBI, personally, I think the current solution of just using your downvotes how you want is most fair. I have more SP than some because I acquired it one way or another. It's proof of stake, the more you have the more influence you have. This works exactly the same regardless of the account. Just like SBI, there is no brain involved in having more or less.
If a project is using its upvotes or downvotes in a way you don't like, stop associating with it, or downvote it. Or if it doesn't produce content, downvote whoever or whatever it supports. This is a fundamental part of Steem which would need to be changed after a whole lot of discussion I argue is currently unnecessary. I'd save it and potential solutions including removing all rewards and paying out in SMTs, or worse some sort of centralized authority, for another rant.
One thing I don't personally like is auto downvote or downvote trails or delegating to anyone who downvotes. Unlike upvoting, I like to be in full control of my downvotes and know exactly who I am downvoting case by case and why. Call it a bias, but I think most people here share that bias. Getting random upvotes feels nice. Getting random downvotes sucks. We don't need bad feelings. That said, I don't think most decent (1000SP+) downvotes are random.
Phew... long post to address... in principle we are in agreement, just little nuances I think!
I agree that not all bidbots were unethical before #newsteem, there were some that also ran a whitelist... however, even ocdb recognised the problem that whitelisted authors would sometimes dip in quality.
To be honest, sometimes (often?) the non-automated votes are not really proof of brain... more like proof of reading the headline and saw the cover image!
The major difference with SBI in comparison is that the benefits are spread so far out in time. With a bitbot, you only need to stay under the radar for the 7 day reward period and then you are in profit and winning... it really makes for an attractive game to try your hand at if you aren't particularly invested in your blog. With SBI, you are "at risk" for a very very long time... and you have much more than that single SBI share at risk if you are trying to game the system, it is your accumulated SBI stake. So, this is a model that is much more geared towards long-term social and beneficial growth behaviour.
I know that people buy for their alts (I think I have a handful about 10-20 total on @msearles (my gaming and actifit stream) and @classical-radio (A curation account for Classical-music), but (without definite proof) I would say that this is a small problem... and not large one that should be used as a black mark against the whole project.
I would describe SBI more as a long-term investment lockup.
Agreed with the onboarding and rentention. Not sure about the taxing analogy... after all this could be applied to all things, any attempt to build a community could be classed as a way of redistributing to a closed circle and by extension a tax on any non-participants.
Yep... but I don't agree with the tax part! The banning of abusers is a good sign and one thing that I really agree with to keep the project honest.
I think using your downvotes as you wish is fair... however, the idea that it is consequence free is a dangerous idea. Actions should have some consequence... perhaps a risk staking of SP for the action, otherwise, people can downvote and they are untouchable. There is no way to decrease their influence... now most people will not go this route, but some will... and what can you do to protect yourself? Only a lucky intervention by a large account or a protective group of friends... not everyone has that... and I don't think that approach is scalable either.
No sure that I would agree with adding an otherwise innocent third party... downvoting someone who supports the project is not the normal way we would conduct ourselves in public. I don't like criminals, but I'm not going to punish a relative who loves them....
I do agree that if you don't like the content, downvote it directly...
...which leads to the other problem, if the accounts don't produce content, then they are essentially invincible... unless you want to drag in bystanders.... which I don't think is a good solution.
My problem wasn't so much with the randomness... it is the fact that one particular account is proportionate and clear about their downvoting... (I don't like it, but at least it is clear and proportionate)... whilst another goes full 100% with no clear reason.
Disproportionate downvoting from invincible accounts is not something that is going to scale well if STEEM wants to grow... especially if the only protection is a network of big accounts ready to protect an otherwise unknown and not particularly important account!
I guess long replies get long responses (genuinely appreciate it. Our opinions seem very similar, some points from mine require certain clarifications.
I do agree that the POB argument gets boring and there isn't a whole lot of it. I just like using POB when comparing two unrelated actions. However, some actions require more brains and are fairer than others. It's just another measurement in the judgemental toolbox. I think you got my other point well that all services have their flaws.
SBI is better than most but can still and should still be ever improved. Something I would like that never happened were strict limits. The value of an SBI vote should never be equal more than say 25% of the post value at the time of the vote up to a maximum of 0.1 Steem or something (I just pulled these numbers off the top of my head).
Maximizing SBI payouts was much easier when votes with 'guaranteed positive ROI' ugh were allowed on all their accounts, daily posts, comments and whatever. I think most of us can agree good riddance. As with buying votes for self, it wasn't all bad. Most people just voted for them with honest excessive Vote power or to build a transparent alt account. Abuse was and still is stopped when informed.
However, the voting all their posts was permanently fixed. Buying for alts has not been fixed. There are solutions, but they are much more difficult to agree on so I didn't bother suggesting any.
One more thing I will add is that SBI is centralized. It's good, but it's ultimately unofficial and only permitted because the system inheritly allows it. I think an official SBI with a consensus from Dao would be a more sustainable system in the long run. However, I still maintain fixing it now is very low priority.
The reason I called it a tax is because it is removing and redistributing rewards from the reward pool. The rewards aren't earned, they are bought. I also view the Steem.dao as a tax (the witness fee is operating cost, rewards and inflation are income). It's just my way of reconciling what is going on, perhaps tax is the wrong word, but I feel sink would be inappropriate, too. Technically SBI and DAO are both unnecessary (Steem arguably operated just fine without them), unlike witnesses, inflation and rewards which are fundamental aspects of Steem. However, since technically all the SBI accounts belong to Joseph, unlike Dao which is autonomous, SBI is a little different.
Yeah, I'm still working on this. I do think SBI is different. It's not as annoying as vote trading because it is open to all. However, it is directly proportioned and not earned, but instead bought (the additional share does conflict with this, my thinking isn't fully developed on it).
I don't entertain the idea that downvoting is consequence free, but I do have somewhat of a lassez-faire attitude. On the transparent blockchain we can see who downvoted us. We can seek revenge (try it sometimes, feel the darkside). Personally I think a great solution would be to considerably increase the RC cost of the 'free' downvotes. Put them at the cost of say whatever 500 SP will get you in RC. It will instantly stop the annoying nibbles and put in some value.
However, this will still benefit the bigger guys. The only other solution would be to prevent low rep accounts from doing it. If you don't have 50 rep, sorry no downvoting for you. Another solution could be to limit it to people with active comments or posts only to enable others to get revenge. For example, your maximum permitted downvotes at any time are limited to your maximum pending rewards (this will also up the revenge game to an exciting degree). I think it would work because random and stupid downvotes were rare before EIP changes.
This does require a little research. Some of the downvote trolls have certain accounts they really love to support. Technically the trolls aren't acquiring their SP in a bad way, but in certain circumstances, it can work. It's definitely an ethical gray zone and I don't do it personally. However, it can and does work. North Korea, Russia and China all employ this tactic in the real world (guilt by association), oddly no one cares or calls it unfair when it is positive (wow your distant relative is famous).
I completely agree. I do like some of the other suggestions to have a service (another tax) that is a counter downvote. It would scan for downvotes, employ white and black lists, then counter. We could all join for a fee. The SPS could easily fund such a thing. Pay 2% of your author rewards and 1% of your curation rewards (not sure of the fair ratio here) a month to the dao or the insurance pool as downvote insurance. Hell, I'd consider writing the proposal if someone could code it. It's much better than that ridiculous proposal that was written a couple of months ago that asked for a set of ethical standards against downvoting.
The way I would envision the insurance working is you get 1 counter for free and you are provided with info on joining. It would also add an interesting side game of downvoting people who don't join it to pressure them into joining.
This is why I love Steem, so many ideas out there and so many people to chat to it about.
@bengy @abitcoinsceptic all off the above and what about the downvotes you get with buying sbi
I stopped buying SBI a long time before the hardfork. I'm still getting vites from them, but I was promised those forever as long as I don't violate policy.
I was never gauranteed no one would downvote me for getting them (it's sad that it happens though and does no good for Steem over all)
The idea of a cap is pretty interesting, maybe not based on the time of vote, but the absolute cap for a post... on the other hand, the diminishing returns on the vote (rshares?) does simulate that to an extent... if you post often, then you get some pretty severe drops on vote value..
The centralisation/decentralisation of SBI is a mixed thing... yes, it is a touch disconcerting that it is held under a single person... and at this moment, that is a benevolent "dictator"... but of course, like all governance... that isn't always a lasting thing... on the other hand, this sort of centralisation allows for the easy blacklisting and banning of abusive accounts, something that would otherwise be much more difficult (or at the very least slower...) in the decentralised models. At least SBI do react to abuse reports.. I know of other services that have been pretty crap at that in the past... not bothering to do any due diligence on reported plagarised posts... and those were really well known and highly supported ones.
... yes, I understand what you mean by tax... but for many the idea of tax has so much negative connotations (especially here...). I personally see tax as a way of funding social programmes that would otherwise be unfunded (fundamental research, social welfare) or should be kept away from for-profit companies (justice system, hospitals, schools)... however, I know that there are others who only see the personal imposition.
I don't know about this... for large accounts, RC is essentially limitless and is a regenerating resouce... the cost is essentially zero. It would be like asking a millionaire (or are we up to billionaires now?) to hand over 100 euros if they wanted to punch someone. It doesn't really matter to them!
Whoosh... I'm afraid I missed this connection!
Interesting... was there a post describing this? This does sound quite like a possible productive idea!
It seems like we are close to the same thoughts here on most issues.
....except with my analogy for justifying downvoting people simply because they are supported by individuals you don't like (guilt by association).
I agree it is a greyzone reason for downvoting someone. However, it can be classified as reward disagreement which is a valid reason for downvoting.
For example if someone I want to target (personX) never posts or comments, but always votes for personY, I can downvote personY equal to the vote record from personX. It will affect the curation reward of PersonX slightly.
I would not use that method, unless there was strong evidence it is the same person or vote farming. But it remain the only way to impact this person. Too much collateral damage.
In anycase, downvoting and ways to improve target efficiency need to be discussed a lot more.
Yes, it would affect the Curation rewards of X slightly... but at a much larger cost to Person Y! I agree that it isn't really a solution unless there was certainty that it was the same person... but still, my original point of the post still stands. The penalty for doing bad... is zero! ... and if you get away with it, there is net gain... so, the game theory choice is.... go nuts! (if you aren't attached to the account but more to the monetary gain....).
It's a dilemma. I remember Facebook resisted a dislike or negative expression for the longest time. Reddit leaves everyone with a feeling of ???? because of moderator complex or random downvotes. Steem adds money/rewards to the mix and communities/front ends may allow reddit style moderation soon.
I think all your suggestions hobble dv to make policing the network for self aggregating behavior a chore hardly anyone would be burdened to do, but the last one regarding "maximum pending rewards = maximum downvoted" made me chuckle, because here you were Proof Of Stake, then Boom, proof of trending.
I also think these solutions would be over complicated. However, removing downvoting entirely or centralizing it would be worse.
It's very difficult to remove any more than the maximum pending rewards (by downvoting). You can remove a small amount of curation rewards (by downvoting), but that is nasty business.
I like steem being a combination if proof of stake and proof of brain. Not fully sure what proof of trending is. Some pretty big whales on the platform have said they will downvote anyone for the reason of simply rewards being too high. I'm not sure of any cases, but it is really interesting.
I think these aren't solutions at all as they don't solve anything and usually only exacerbate abuse by obstruction, as they attempt to make it a challenge to abuse but all they do is make it more taxing on good actors.
I said "proof of trending" because I was chuckling at your last, and surely hardly considered, suggestion regarding tying vests to post payout.
The problem is Abusive Flagging.
The solution that has existed is for others to counter it. The dilemma presented here is that the Good Actors cannot police the network, but if the good actors cannot police the network we would expect that bad actors have overran this place. That isn't the case, and so the dilemma which is presented as a impassable mountain quickly is exposed as a hilt of beans at best by virtue of the overwhelming propensity of Good Actors to do good vs Bad Actors to do bad.
I agree that further complicating stuff doesn't work. People want a solution to downvoting. Downvoting is really simple right now and I don't see how further simplifying it will go away.
I think you misunderstand my points above.
Reward payout has always been based on the amount of vests which is determined by the weight of the stake.
My suggestion was for someone to offer insurance. It could be a dao proposal, but O doubt it would get funded so it would have to be third party.
Downvotes in general are earned just like upvotes.
For example I don't shy away from arguement, I'm in full support of downvoting, and I don't get downvoted anymore than others around here. In otherwords I'm not earning downvotes.
However, as explained Ibdo think the blockchain should make glfree downvoting more complicated to eliminate those annoying accounts without any res poll sources from giving ng meaningless ones.
I completely disagree that abusive flagging is a problem
There are a couple people with meaningful votes that do it, but most cases are either infrequent, almost nil (see my solution above), genuine mistakes, or avoidable.
There is only one case left I consider an issue and that is downvotes from people who are rage quitting. I get all my comments (0.000 payout) downvoted from one individual from time to time because they don't have much SP (~500) amd want to censor me. It sucks, but this person hasn't down anything to get on a blacklist yet.
What do you think about an abusive downvoter blacklist? Front ends and dapper makers could use it to at least hide their actions. Downvotes with less than 0.01sbd barely hurt and only give negative feels...hiding them may be best. Out of sight out of mind.