You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A fundamental change to my witness voting behavior

in #witness-category3 years ago (edited)

You should a bit more systematic with your approach, it's not because @jerrybanfield openly trade votes that others don't.

I will personally consider something like not voting for any top 20 witness that is voted by or votes for more than 5 other top witness. (curious how that will change my votes.)


Thanks for your feedback! I absolutely agree, it's not more than an indicator.

I'm not sure if your idea is practical though. Many of the top witnesses deserve their spot, and personally I wouldn't want to choose something like the tops of the tops. On the other hand, moving your votes down the list is something I always support, I try to do that myself more and more too.

Yeah this reminds me of school @pharesim, my teacher always told me that sometimes you can agree to disagree.

Could you guys change the voting algorithm for witnesses so that no witness in the top 20 could vote for another witness in the top 20, that sounds like it would solve the problem and really help decentralize the power of the platform. I hope it wouldn't influence your positions either and I think anyone involved in the decision would get massive support from the whole community. I would personally encourage everyone to vote for you and whoever else made it happen. Is it possible though? @pharesim @transisto

I need your help on how steemit can be developed. Would you help me?

Got it. Also, thanks for making use of our #nobidbot tag :-) Welcome to curate from the tag :-D

As @lukestokes explained, it's hard to do that. I vote for many of the top 20 because they're pretty much good friends with me at this point. They've helped me out in many different ways with my projects, or provided other support to me as a witness.

I do try to vote for smaller witnesses when I can, and may sometimes remove votes from top 20's if I know they're in there safely.

Sorry, but I'd bet that's not what lukestokes meant. That you're friends, or that they help you personally, should exactly not be the reason for a witness vote...

Meanwhile though, in reality, that's exactly how real life works!

Be part of the change you want to see in the world

Given that the worldwide humanitarian aid organization I created here has LITERALLY saved lives of the unfortunate, and quite assuredly, thousands of disadvantaged lives have been touched.... while other witnesses did what? In some cases not a doggamn thing of any use to the world at all (most cases really to be honest) Welp, okay, that's a pretty ridiculous response. Get back to me when any other witness has actually "changed the world" with steem like I have with the aid our network of agents and generous donors here providing food, construction labor, medicine, clothing, shoes, seeds and educational supplies to homeless, orphans, sick and dying and entire villages of people among other things in a dozen countries around the globe.

Want me to point at myself or what?

Get back to me when any other witness has actually [done more good than myself]

Are you trying to reach a new level of arrogance with every new comment?

There are some grains of salt in your criticism of course. Your generalizations and switching and mixing of issues and people prevent to focus on them though. That way you won't reach anything, boy.

Ouch. . .wow. . .yikes. Things did take a nasty turn here. But you can expect me to side with Cork, if not in tone, then in principle. It's the effective charity work that made me want to align with his witness and become part of it. Those accomplishments are irrefutable. I realize that in a cutthroat world, altruism and philanthropy are the wrong horses to bet on. But I'll put my money on them every time, regardless.

Cork's "delivery" doesn't bother me overmuch because I'd rather see someone walk the walk than talk the talk. Is it really arrogance if it's true? Maybe, but how else would the point get made? This is the Wild West, and everyone is scrabbling for a foothold. I'd like to see less nastiness on the platform overall. But I can dream, right?

For what it's worth, I am for things that make sense. Decaying vote power for dead or dying witnesses is logical. A voting page with more than 50 choices is logical, as well. The platform is growing. These types of things need to grow with it.

Anyone who thinks we don't have problems here at Steemit needs only to look at the statistics published last week by paulag . New user signup is down by 50%. That should be scaring the shit out of anyone with a vested interest in the platform. Or maybe I just don't know what's happening behind the scenes, i.e.: if there's a reason investors want users to go away. The only thing I can do is assure everyone that I'm doing everything in my power to make this a place where content creators feel welcome and appreciated. That in itself is a battle royale in the current paradigm.

Becoming part of a witness team with Sircork (or anyone else) is not going to give me an edge with that. I know this. I labor under no misapprehension. But I do think top level witnesses are out of touch with things happening at the "street level" of Steemit. Basically what I've seen in this conversation is Cork raising his voice to be heard over the noise, and feeling frustrated at the amount of effort it takes to get a point across. Maybe witnesses do need better communication across the ranks. I think the business model of Steemit will have to incorporate a lot of changes like that to make it as scaleable as it needs to be to survive.

Sure, side with him, I didn't even get what exactly he was trying to tell me in between all the generalizations and accusations.
Unfortunately, your comment didn't help to clear that up at all, just going the same route. The two specific points you repeated are targeted at steemit inc. and have been acknowledged and explained by luke and me. I wouldn't say we disagree, but we surely rate the severance of these issues differently.

top level witnesses are out of touch with things happening at the "street level"

Where is the magic line for that to end? Witness 21? In the paragraph before you were talking about investors. Now which of those groups is at fault? Are they all the same maybe? Or is there a certain amount of SP at which you become one of those that don't care? And jerry is the grand exception?

Boy, Ha, I was working in tech before you were born Son, the problem is not in my delivery, it's in your inability to either acknowledge or recognize things that require more wisdom than you've ever earned or accumulated. Son

Well, welcome to the world of blockchains. Things are a bit different here, but I bet even an old man like you can adapt.

One thing I noticed, with my own personal voting over time, is that a good number of my witness votes are now top 20 witnesses when previously they were not. I vote for them because I believe they provide value to the ecosystem. Some obvious answers (like Jesta) were clearly always there, but some others were not and moved up to the top 20 later. Seems odd to arbitrarily determine the value of my vote based on the ranking instead of the value the actual witness provides to the network.

Any metric outside of "How valuable is this account's contribution over time?" seems like a shortcut to me. Then again, giving others a better chance to rise up into the top 20 might be a good thing to shake things up.

It's supposed to naturally be that way, right? Makes sense to have the leadership change sometimes so we can learn. It can easily be changed back again. Or am I mistaken?

Leadership change is, to me, as good as the new leaders are better than the old ones. Change for change sake isn't always a good thing (it can also lead to worse outcomes). But yes, you're right, they can easily be changed back again which is a very nice aspect of this ecosystem.

What would it hurt to do away with self upvoting? It seems to be a major point of contention between the little guys and big guys. A lot of folks complain that if you have enough SP you can just upvote yourself all the time and not worry about providing value. While it may not be the exact topic in this thread, I feel they're close. It's hard to believe it hasn't been discussed, but I haven't seen it anywhere yet.

I don't self vote (check steemreports). This has been discussed at length in many places by myself and others. It can't be stopped because of game theory dynamics and Sybil attack concerns. Many don't understand this and get frustrated asking for simple solutions to very complex problems.

SMTs will have Oracles which may allow for 1 person, 1 vote. This would involve some form of KYC or identity management (to prevent Sybil attacks) and it would be opt in. That, I think, will be the answer for those who want vote strength based on proof of human over voting weight (which tries to get close to proof of brain).

Very cool. That probably is much more technical than I can comprehend at the moment. I'll be checking for self votes as I get more into voting. Cast my first 5 votes last night, and you were definitely one. Keep up the good work.

Do you mean self voting specific to witness voting or in terms of content?

I meant upvoting one's own content. To me it cheapens the space if someone can upvote their own content and earn income from the blockchain regardless of community support. Maybe I'm thinking wrong though...

I'm late to this thread since I've only been a user for just over a week, but I'm finding this conversation very helpful. Above, you say that [self votes?] can't be stopped due to game theory dynamics and Sybil attack concerns. Do you have any pointers to posts I can read explaining this?

Then again, giving others a better chance to rise up into the top 20 might be a good thing to shake things up.

I think that's the point. More decentralization of power. It may not have any effect on who is in the top 20 if the top 20 are that good.

I agree, as long as the top 20 are solid and providing real value to the network, it doesn't matter to the network who they are.


Stupid suggestion to be totally arbitrary + largest vote is vote for self.

Yep, I'm reading a Transisto comment.

You are worse than useless.

You are worse than useless.

Is this a beneficial comment to the community to encourage open discussion and new ideas? Do you know how much transisto invested in this community by purchasing STEEM and how many valuable rewards have been paid out to people because of investment from people like him?

The irony here is your comment might actually be more "worse than useless" because you're putting down a comment which was just a "consideration" to discuss.

Let's be nice, even if we disagree.

Stupid suggestion to be totally arbitrary

I was specifically suggesting to not be arbitrary and be more systematic.

largest vote is vote for self.

What does reward voting has to do with witness voting?