Vote Negation
I still think this would be a good idea: Vote Negation
Pros:
- Less time spent on finding each and every post/comment to oppose.
- Less "blockchain bloat" (which isn't actually a real issue under bandwidth and RC in the first place)
- More demand for SP. I maintain that downvotes lead to buy pressure. This is more efficient than downvoteing, so as such, would lead to even more buy pressure.
- Improved Trending Page. Debatable, but I think it's a reasonable leap.
Cons:
- Hard to understand. I agree, this is probably the most "inside baseball" idea. New users would not understand it, prima facie.
- Already possible with off-chain logic. If you write a good bot to oppose every action of a particular user, you can achieve the same effect, so why add an on-chain solution?
- "It's Censorship!"
- Dan thought of it.
What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!
0
0
0.000
It's an interesting idea, but I think making a good bot to do it is a better so it is acceptable and easy for interested customers, but not an official Steem tool.
The bot owner can charge a fee to make money and remove user privilage for people who abuse it. Acceptable and unacceptable use should be agreed to in a TOS before its use.
The problem with off-chain logic to simulate vote negation is that authors will get confused about the opposing vote. Say alice upvotes something and bob opposes it. The original author now thinks bob has something against him.
How would on chain logic fix that unless Bob's vote negation is secret like voting on Reddit or Youtube. I see a situation where Alice just shouts conspiracy and censorship instead of targeting Bob.
Maybe this is good because there are a lot of crazy Alice's out there who we all probably want to ignore until they adjust their medication and think about what they are doing.
Not so much secret, but less directed. I would envision it being recorded differently than a vote by bob.
I'm thinking, the original author could dig and see that alice was opposed by bob, but it's clear that it wasn't due to the original author's content specifically.
Yes, alice would have a ammunition to claim she's being censored by bob, but not the original author. Personally, I don't see it as censorship because alice's vote is still recorded on a public blockchain. But I do see the argument.
Pussies ^^
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't see the point, because of this: "Already possible with off-chain logic. If you write a good bot to oppose every action of a particular user, you can achieve the same effect, so why add an on-chain solution?" If the bot-owner is worried about offending the post's author, they could program the bot to leave a comment to explain that it's nothing personal.
Also, ideally, I think the vote should have some relationship to the content that is being voted upon. Yes, stakeholders are free to choose how to vote their stake, but the blockchain shouldn't encourage them to vote based on any factors other than to appraise the value of a post. Intuitively with vote negation, negated votes would probably be cast in the wrong direction 50% of the time (as compared to the "true" value of the post). Conceptually, it's a step away from "proof of brain", not towards it.
If anything, I think the problem now is the opposite. Whether downvote or upvote, there's no penalty for casting a wildly extreme vote. Which is why I have been a long-time proponent of an algorithm based upon a second price auction. Under rules like that, the voter would be penalized for being out of step with the voting consensus - on upvotes and downvotes. This would motivate voters to consider not just their own appraisals, but also their own perception of how others will appraise the post..
It seems like this "second price auction" would be a wonderful thing to try in a tribe or SMT. Come to think of it, vote negation could also just be applied to a tribe or SMT as well. Just make any or all of these an option available when defining a new reward pool.
In a sense, it'd be like trying out these wild new rules on a testnet, except that they'd have real-world variables in play.
Agreed. With an SMT or tribe that's tied to a token with actual value, you'd also get a realistic view of human behavior when the technology is available. In a case of ironic timing, I just left this comment on a steemitblog post, shortly before you posted this article yesterday.
Hi, @inertia!
You just got a 0.85% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.
Since next HF is doing RC pool delegation, I Would do bandwidth negation, with for example a 4x ratio where you could delegate 60 sp worth of negative RC to suppress posting ability of a 15 SP account. Counter positive delegation would ensue but the assumption is that ~3/4 of all idle SP know what to censor and what to enable.
Getting into the realm of actual censorship, but still justifiable.