You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [Proposal] A New Efficient Way to Cope with Abusers
Village is not a group of users but just a space to post (like a local market). An abuser in bad town can do good behaviors in a good village.
Village is not a group of users but just a space to post (like a local market). An abuser in bad town can do good behaviors in a good village.
Hi @clayop thanks for replying and helping me understand a bit more regarding your proposal.
Thanks!
nonetheless, according to your proposal, it would seem that one abuser in the village could draw the 'sin city' flag, and no one in the village would be able to gain rewards.
That's like 51% attack. We surely have more stake held by good users than abusers.
The top two authors on Steemit are scammers, @mindhunter and @tamim. Your assumption is not proved.
Also, most of the Steem that exists was mined before Steemit even was created. Again, the assumption is invalid.
Who gets the $5k buyin when one enters a village?
IMO, your argument is less relevant to my statement.
And you might misunderstand. No-one pays for entering village. Fees are paid when villages are created.
So, when a village, composed of 100 Steemers who have each paid 5000 Steem, gets blacklisted, and those 100 people give up on the village, what happens to the 500,000 Steem they paid to join it when it disbands?
If one Steemer wants out, what happens to their 5k investment?
Users dont pay for the village fee. It is paid by the creator once and the village is opened to everyone.
Do you envision the creator of the village then having veto power over who to accept into the village? If not, no one will do it.
Whitelisting or blacklisting. It should be possible.