Viewing a response to: @l0k1/introducing-smackdown-kitty
"The main reason why this was not an issue before was simply that Whales aren't desperate to earn a few bux while doing something that is socially unacceptable. They weren't accountable to anyone else anyway, but some of them did care about their reputation." This is a strange statement because, If I remember correctly, they were already making lots of money because of the way rewards were distributed. So, can someone tell me why people will invest in Steem Power? Final note: It should be up to SteemIt to change the system rather than employing a 'BullyBot'. What if you BullyBotters then decide to change something else. I mean, you do realize that many users have invested in Steem Power and may rely on the income it generates. They can't just pull their money out, because powering down takes such a long time. Imaginary headlines, "I put my money in and then they changed the rules. I couldn't get my money out." "I followed the rules, but they hounded me out" "They have a bot that bullies people" "They can all vote for their circle of friends, but if you vote for yourself within the rules, they go crazy and set a bot on you"
post_id | 5,818,681 |
---|---|
author | davidnx |
permlink | re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t203103339z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 20:31:03 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 20:31:03 |
depth | 1 |
children | 18 |
net_rshares | 85,418,179,050 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 20:31:03 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.556 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.151 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 1,148 |
author_reputation | 1,304,834,874,260 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
personz | 0 | 26,568,865,356 | 23% | ||
chasmic-cosm | 0 | 0 | 0% | ||
lexiconical | 0 | 57,476,525,594 | 6% | ||
hipster.fat.ass | 0 | 0 | 100% |
People invest in Steem Power because they believe that Steem provides a desirable social function as well as an equitable distribution system for newly issued cryptocurrency. You are committing a logical fallacy in your question asking why people invest in steem power, as though the only mechanism for distribution is self voting. If you are that much of a bore nobody votes on you, why should the network bear the cost of your spammy self votes and give you money for giving nothing to nobody? The logical fallacy is called **False Dichotomy**. This is almost the favourite tool of political rhetoric. It is also an attempt to intimidate the querant and assumes they are stupid and don't realise the list of options has omissions. The thing about not being able to get money out is a non sequitur because we are not targeting accounts with under 1000SP, both because they are mostly new, struggling accounts, and the proportional impact on rewards will be greater (though still miniscule). The votes it gives are absolute minimum and only will rise as an account continues the comment self upvoting. And lastly, it won't flag original posts because this is a default in the user interface and would be unnecessarily confusing. Self voting takes a specific conscious effort to do, and we are aiming to break that habit, and show people how it feels to not lick their balls. Everyone votes for their friends, usually because they like what they friends do. Usually this is why people become friends. EDIT: Not only that, but a secondary, positive feature, is that if you have previously self voted comments, and then stop, in a random time period from 2-8 hours, your non-self-voted comments will be upvoted at 1%. This may seem a trifling amount, but the economics of managing the bot's voting power mean that once we get through to a person, we want to at least show them gratitude by incrementing the vote count, even if it does not mean very much, and it saves the bot vote power because every subsequent upvote you make will increase the proportion up to the limit at which it neutralises your reward. And the bot will not forget your past behaviour, or the level at which you decided to stop, because maybe you arbitrarily vote your comments up. This also accounts for those who don't upvote every comment they make, perhaps because they aren't entirely greedy. To reset it to zero would open up the possibility of gaming our bot, which we will not allow. The upvotes she gives will continue indefinitely until the bot is decommissioned. If you are wondering about whether a mass of people with your mistaken ideas about what we are trying to achieve here will attempt to spam up the chain with self votes, then you also, as a collective, will show that you care more about keeping your ability to divert rewards away from those who vote for others, than the community as a whole, which will then invalidate your argument. And some day in the distant future, when we have full AI bots, people will be able to automate the investigation process to locate sockpuppet accounts. I have been working on simple rule systems for this, but they require intelligence to find sufficient links between the activities of an individual engaging in this activity. It is on my agenda for development of my distributed network architecture design, which I started to do intensively when I went on a holiday from Steem after I got tired of struggling with getting Steemit, Inc to make the HF 19 change. My planned media monetisation system requires this, after the network scales up, and I intend to work on this in parallel with my work as a Witness on Steem, because I, like many others, consider Steemit, Inc. to be an absentee landlord, and just as Dan Larimer has expressed when talking about how he moved on from BTS to Steem, and then to EOS, it was his intention that at some point the community would become the arbiters of who would be developing it, and develop a community governance system to make it more responsive, by opening it up wider, and monetising the code production itself, directly.
post_id | 5,820,349 |
---|---|
author | l0k1 |
permlink | re-davidnx-re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t205148772z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 20:51:54 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 21:10:54 |
depth | 2 |
children | 17 |
net_rshares | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 20:51:54 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 4,106 |
author_reputation | 94,769,080,451,415 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
"People invest in Steem Power because they believe that Steem provides a desirable social function as well as an equitable distribution system for newly issued cryptocurrency." This simply isn't true. As I said in my other, reply on the other thread, why haven't those commentators, and, I am sure, some here, invested in Steem Power. A good number of those complaining about altruism and what is polite simply don't invest. It's very easy for them to talk about how people should vote. How altruistic are they being? "You are committing a logical fallacy in your question asking why people invest in steem power, as though the only mechanism for distribution is self voting." No. You are simply introducing something that I never said. Look at the paragraph above and answer it. "If you are that much of a bore nobody votes on you, why should the network bear the cost of your spammy self votes and give you money for giving nothing to nobody? The logical fallacy is called False Dichotomy. This is almost the favourite tool of political rhetoric. It is also an attempt to intimidate the querant and assumes they are stupid and don't realise the list of options has omissions." I never addressed anything of the sort. If this is the best you can do in forming your argument against what I actually said? I made some valid points. I think it is a failure on your part that you did not address them.
post_id | 5,821,721 |
---|---|
author | davidnx |
permlink | re-l0k1-re-davidnx-re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t210928446z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 21:09:30 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 21:10:36 |
depth | 3 |
children | 12 |
net_rshares | 9,579,420,932 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 21:09:30 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.058 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.018 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 1,405 |
author_reputation | 1,304,834,874,260 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
lexiconical | 0 | 9,579,420,932 | 1% |
You ask the question, why do people invest in steem power, and my answers don't fit your narrative. So you claim that therefore my point is invalid. If you are really driving at the unspoken question, which is 'how do the people with low self esteem and talent earn money on steem' the answer is, they don't. There is a million other ways such a person can make a living honestly that do not require them to spam up a community blockchain with empty, vapid upvotes on their own, vapid, empty comments. Also note, and I am not sure if it was Ned who coined the name, but the word Steem is shortened also from Esteem, which means 'to value something'. Excessive self esteem is called arrogance and conceit.
post_id | 5,822,576 |
---|---|
author | l0k1 |
permlink | re-davidnx-re-l0k1-re-davidnx-re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t211953089z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 21:19:57 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 21:21:06 |
depth | 4 |
children | 11 |
net_rshares | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 21:19:57 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 706 |
author_reputation | 94,769,080,451,415 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
"Everyone votes for their friends, usually because they like what they friends do. Usually this is why people become friends." It troubles me that you are not aware of the problem of voting circles - people who band together to vote each other up. There have been enough articles and comments about it here on SteemIt.
post_id | 5,822,353 |
---|---|
author | davidnx |
permlink | re-l0k1-re-davidnx-re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t211714734z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 21:17:15 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 21:17:15 |
depth | 3 |
children | 3 |
net_rshares | 11,174,839,576 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 21:17:15 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.074 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.016 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 319 |
author_reputation | 1,304,834,874,260 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |
author_curate_reward | "" |
voter | weight | wgt% | rshares | pct | time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
lexiconical | 0 | 9,579,420,932 | 1% |
I am fully aware of the circle jerk, and in fact, HF19 was made because of people's bubbling rage against this injustice. Because of the architecture of an open, distributed system like Steem, with no moderators, and the difficulty of identifying sock puppets, there is no intention to address this issue because it is outside of the scope. It is completely natural for people to cluster into affinity groups, and indeed, the necessary corollary of this, of the conflict between different groups, is precisely what is taking place between you and me now. Both dynamics have their place in the process of developing a community, and establishing the rules and customs in that community.
post_id | 5,823,227 |
---|---|
author | l0k1 |
permlink | re-davidnx-re-l0k1-re-davidnx-re-l0k1-introducing-smackdown-kitty-20170701t212802308z |
category | steem |
json_metadata | "{"app": "steemit/0.1", "tags": ["steem"]}" |
created | 2017-07-01 21:28:06 |
last_update | 2017-07-01 21:28:06 |
depth | 4 |
children | 2 |
net_rshares | 0 |
last_payout | 2017-07-08 21:28:06 |
cashout_time | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 |
total_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
curator_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
pending_payout_value | 0.000 SBD |
promoted | 0.000 SBD |
body_length | 686 |
author_reputation | 94,769,080,451,415 |
root_title | "Introducing Smackdown Kitty" |
beneficiaries | [] |
max_accepted_payout | 1,000,000.000 SBD |
percent_steem_dollars | 10,000 |