RE: HF20 Update: Restoring Continuity
Reading these comments, I realize I was mistaken when I left my first comment last night. I was under the impression that new accounts got 15SP to start and that the 10x coming tonight was going to be applied equally to every account. Turns out both are incorrect.
New accounts apparently get only 5SP now. And the 10x is going to the entire RC pool, not equally to each account. Now I don't know how that distribution is going to be decided, but how everything else has been decided suggests that the more you have, the more you'll get.
Well that's just backwards. Right now I can leave 100+ comments/post per day. No way I'm using all that, so making it 1,000+ for me isn't helping anyone.
Meanwhile, a new user genuinely working to build relationships on here and contribute valuable content to the platform may not even get 10x, and even if they did, that would only mean their being able to comment or post about once per day.
Come on. Let's just skip this 10x and go straight to 100x. Then the team can look at usage and adjust from there. It's absurd to make people wait... how much longer?.... before normal usage can resume so that you can even begin collecting meaningful data. Please address this now.
On a separate but related point, why are we equating being new with being a spammer? Why are we trying to fight spam in a way that penalizes new people?
I completely understand the need for using RCs to track resource usage, and giving individuals and the devs accurate feedback on system utilization by various actions. I totally get why that is necessary for SMTs to work in the next fork.
But don't you think you should start by giving people enough RCs for a normal human to function on here when they first start out?
Don't you think the method for preventing spam should not resemble a method for preventing usage by new users?
I was positing this months ago, before UA scores came about, and I see it even more now. I knew that the way people were talking about fighting spam would hurt new users. And then I suggested another dimension for being a real person other than amount of SP held, which was contribution to the platform.
I was unable to make the logistics work, but then came the whole UA score functionality, which has been doing a banging job of figuring out who is contributing more or less to the platform. Why not have that be what determines how many RCs someone starts each 5 day period with?
Let's stop equating having more money with having more value to this platform.
Through the greatest pain comes the greatest growth. But not if the pain is too much to bear. Then all hope is lost.
I totally agree with your suggestion of 100x and then adjust. If the goal and indeed requirement for growth is for people to comment, reply, upvote, and post, then they must be allowed to do this. I don't know enough about the technical requirements here, but I do know people. If the "common folks" cannot afford, or are not allowed to comment and vote at least 10, preferably 20-30 times a day, the platform will die a slow death.
Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day. I personally find it very frustrating being limited to only 10 votes on certain days when there is a lot of good content sliding in between the spam. This is a requirement for the system to grow, we must allow the minnows to interact. Isn't that what has caused the most outrage during this fork? It has been the inability of the general user to interact. Why not implement the "simple" fix as others have called it at 100x, let folks interact, let the userbase grow to support it? If the system cannot handle 100x then maybe 50x, but 10x is far too low and will not solve the problem, only irritate folks more that yet another promise of usability has been violated.
Let's move forward and keep improving this platform!
"Isn't one of the goals to have more human curation and less bot value? Then allow the human people to comment and vote 30-50 times a day"
What about implementing some WEEKLY votes/curation instead of daily? Regular folks love to post some days and the rest of the days work hard and don't have the time to social media.
IMHO
Indeed!! Can’t agree more! That’s what I do, I’m quite active from Monday till Thursday on the train, but Friday I work from home, and next is the weekend. That’s family time. A weekly reasonable limit would be nice.
Exactly. Why frustrate people longer when 10x isn't going to do anything for anyone who actually needs it. And I also want people leaving lots of comments, because that's how you grow. The spammers need to leave 100+ comments per day, but a real person can't. That's where the cutoff should be set.
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness...Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
This. Lots of this.
I don't think this is a necessary priority. In fact, I don't think it should be the implementation of RC at all. Rather than linear scaling, why not diminishing RC returns or a baseline level of interaction? For an example of how the former would work, perhaps, someone with 5 SP should be able to make 50 comments a day. Someone with one hundred 75, two hundred SP = 100 comments, 400SP=125 and so on. There's still an incentive to increase STEEM holdings because of voting power and/or some interaction bonus, but you give smaller stakeholders the capacity to actually interact only at the expense of large holders being able to do more than anyone needs to do.
Alternatively, give everyone a baseline RC budget of enough for 50 comments a day and scale linearly from there. That's probably simpler. And I know that the folks running the platform think the market can solve all problems, but it's so clear that it can't. We see free market capitalism failing to create livable circumstances for so many people around the world and cycles of poverty becoming inescapable by means of market forces. Why should we believe that an internal RC market will provide the means by which a feasible system will be born? It's great that it provides data, and that can help developers direct software implementations, but it doesn't work for everyday users, I don't think.
If you read my examples and think, "that won't work, he doesn't understand," Fine, but please don't dismiss the sentiment, which is that "fair market" doesn't work for the majority of users, especially not new users.
I agree with your way of seeing how RCs would work better. It's not the issue of counting them as they are spent, which is what's really needed for HF21. That can stay. It's the issue of how they're meted out in the first place.
Here's the thing I've come to: It isn't that they don't understand that these various methods are feasible for making this platform more hospitable to low SP people or new users unready to buy STEEM right off the bat. It's that they don't care about that.
This HF was a success to them because... well... it was a success for everything they care about.
Many years ago a Buddhist teacher responded to my criticisms of things I'd newly discovered about the community of teachers by saying, "The path of awakening is the path of disillusionment. You have to let go of all your illusions, especially your illusions about [buddhism]." Well I've been applying that to everything ever since.
In this case, the time has come for us to let go of our illusions about what this platform means to the company that created it, and realize that it's not what it means to us. The question then becomes, well how do you personally relate to that? That's a question each of us has to answer for ourselves.
Yes most definitely the free market does not work, except in limited circumstances, for instance when it's new and immature, not yet saturated. As it ages the benefits for middle and lower income brackets diminish, as money migrates to the top, and monopolies become the norm. It's a positive feedback loop impossible to break without outside interference. Same for any closed system, just human nature.
can you explain in very simple terms, how to upload this HF20 patch? Thank you for reading my message
I think you meant to put this question at the top level, not under my comment. At least, I'm not one of the witnesses, and only the witnesses had to do anything with the patch.
The rest of us are just benefiting from their having done it already. You should experience its effects automatically now.
It could also be that my channel has been censored
This is incorrect. New users are delegated 15 SP, not 5. This should be more than enough for them to interact and get started. I believe this is going to change the culture of Steem to be that new users should be going for quality, not quantity. As they prove themselves they will gain more influence and be able to interact more. All in all, it's going to drastically reduce the bots and spam around Steem - which has been one of the number one complaints on the network.
I wrote a blog post about it here if you want to read more about my opinion.
They used to get 15SP, but a number of folks on discord have made it clear they got only 5SP.
Have any examples of this?
I believe this is how it works: you initially receive 15 SP delegation. If you go inactive for some time (30/60/90 days?) then your delegation is reduced to 5 SP. This ensures that you can still interact when (or if) you ever come back. If you do come back, your delegation is probably restored.
I've read and commented on so many of these HF posts, that I can't point out where I could find a linkable one. But I'm pretty sure if you just read all the comments on this one post you'll find someone correcting me on the 15SP vs 5SP point. I know I started calculating based on 15SP, which is what I started with 7 months ago, and was corrected several times, including by someone speaking for himself about one of his accounts.
Check out my post I linked to above. All of the users in the screenshot (created five days ago) have 15SP delegation. I don’t see any evidence to the contrary.
@dailyopinion primarily bots that attempt to police the platform like @steemcleaners. Not only are they completely dishonest, but they fail to realize that decentralization or even separation from the mainstream social bullshit has the initial foundation of NOT wanting to be policed.
Let the community decide the content they would like to see! These idiots develop cartels using delegated Steem and attempt to impose their authoritarian power over minnows, which definitely keeps the platform from growing.
Case-in-point: They use robot software to attempt finding content dupes across the net without ever considering who the main content dev was. Posting earlier on the net does not mean that you originated the content. Especially in cases of purposeful syndication or curation!
My educated guess is that things like @steemcleaners will have plenty of RC to continue operating normally - especially them based on the amount of SP in the account and the large delegation.
In my opinion - leaving an automated comment on someone's post letting people know that the article posted may (or may not) be plagiarized is not a terrible idea, as long as not more than one service is doing such a thing.
It may already do this, but if it doesn't it should probably scan the post for words like "This is not my work" or "I'm sharing this" or something, because sometimes it's totally appropriate to share others content - it is nice to know if the author is really the author though or if they wanted to just share something as people often do on social networks.
The blockchain does let the community decide what they'd like to see, or at least what they would like to make less visible through the use of downvotes. This is the built in blockchain mechanism to allow the community to decide what gets seen or not seen.
Either way, I believe spammy/scammy bots will be a lot less common around here.
Nice words and thanks for the help! :)
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"
As we all move ahead in 'oneness..."Reversing Forward. Future Is History"