You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proposal to make spam less profitable
I think the first idea is great. This will actually impose a cost on spammers. In my comment, I outlined why this measure doesn't really impose a cost on proficient spammers.
Not sure if it's possible to impose negative rewards that takes away from one's wallet though.
Thanks @wilfredn!
When I've looked at spam accounts before in analyses, the majority do tend to shut down once their potential return falls to zero. No doubt they start up again with a new account but that's a different problem to solve.
Another option (bouncing off the ideas in your comment) is to reduce the delegated SP or bandwidth as the debt builds up, so spammers spam themselves into submission.
To prevent free speech suppression it could be made possible for other users to remove a user's debt using upvotes. The amounts of potential debt would only be small, unless the user is producing vast numbers of flagged comments.
This is a brilliant idea, and if the negative payouts reduced a spammer's SP that would reduce the power of mass produced spammers that have their SP delegated from a main account.
They should take away from the user's Steem Power, because spammers could easily avoid this by not having any SBD or Steem in their wallet, but Steem Power is required to have bandwidth.