Thank you very very much! More visibility means more people can benefit! This post was intended for beginner programmers not to waste time studying the wrong languages / tooling environments, yet to put them on the right track right away.
PS: did you also see my latest post How-to solve SPAM and Democratize Steem: Introducing UserAuthority ? If not, please consider taking a look at it. This post "How to learn programming" is helpful to beginner programmers, but my "UserAuthority" post needs as much visibility as possible, because I really believe the Steem ecosystem needs my "UserAuthority" algorithm at the core of voting!
PS: did you also see my latest post How-to solve SPAM and Democratize Steem: Introducing UserAuthority ?
Yes, very interesting, I upvoted that, too. Normally I don't resteem a lot, because I like my blog to stay overseeable (it's kind of a storage of my memories and ideas). I can make an exception this time though and resteem the post as well, as Steemit needs some good ideas ...
In case you are interested to read my ideas about 'diminishing returns', you may check this article.
I've read your article Ideas for more justice on Steemit and I agree on the self-upvoting problem and also understand people would not like that idea: they simply feel it's their own right to self-upvote, and that principle follows from the ownership model / share emission system steem runs on. I don't per se think self-upvoting is the most profitable endeavor / growth-strategy btw, but that's another topic ;-)
On-topic: my UserAuthority solution exactly solves your self-upvote problem! :-)
Like this (via HF22, like I proposed at the bottom of my post:
Proposal for HF22: implement UA to curate monetary rewards (author / curation): upvote reward = UA * SP
=> that effectively combats SPAM-rewards , and limits the use of self-upvoting
If returns are diminishing, everybody still has the right to upvote himself. It is just less attractive if he is doing that again and again. It is also less attractive if he is upvoting his friends (or his multiple accounts) again and again ...
But your idea is interesting, too. The problem is if anybody is really aware of these problems and willing to solve them ...
Concerning the effectiveness of self-voting we may have different opinions. I think as soon as you have some steem power it is so easy just to write 10 minimalistic posts per day and then upvote them yourself (or with your other accounts): easy money in the short term, but bad for the Steem price in the long run ...
upvote reward = UA * SP effectively solves the self-upvote problem, all by itself! This mechanism cannot be tricked!
if a self-upvoter is publicly identified by the UA mechanism, people simply need to unfollow that user
the UA probability distribution diminishes the self-upvote powers automatically
in case of multi-upvote-bots and SP delegation by the self-upvoter (look below), those bots would be powerless because nobody would follow them, hence an extremely low amount of UA.
PS: your solution (diminishing multi-self upvotes) could be circumvented via delegating SP to self-owned upvote bot-accounts. Suppose user X, a wealthy (as in: owns much SP) self-upvoter, would delegate 10% of SP to 10 self-owned upvote bots (10 * 10% = 100% of his/her SP). Then it wouldn't be self-upvoting anymore, and each bot would only need to upvote once per post.
Sorry, I have to leave, therefore for now a short reply only: yes, you are right, by delegating Steem power my idea can be circumvented. Actually I am against delegating Steem power, too! :) Too often people who got delegated some Steem power just used it to sell their votes ... that is against the idea of seeking and rewarding good quality content.
I will read your post more thoroughly when I am back home again.
It is the only way for the Utopian IO movement ( website, steem account ) to be able to lift-off. (Utopian is a new movement to reward Open Source contributors around the globe to get rewarded for their contributions with Steem. The last week it received 3.7 million delegated SP. I'm actively involved myself.)
I got delegated some SP personally from a friend (@cnts) (this is just day 26 on Steemit for me, and otherwise I wouldn't have "power" to upvote above $0.00!)
.. so a lot of good can be done with delegating SP!
First of all: it's of course no problem for me that we are of different opinions concerning Steem power delegations.
I got delegated some SP personally from a friend (@cnts) (this is just day 26 on Steemit for me, and otherwise I wouldn't have "power" to upvote above $0.00!)
If he would upvote you regularly instead, you would collect own Steem power anyway (and his upvotes would still be more effective, because a smaller amount of his power would be delegated away from him). In the German community many people thanked me that I didn't delegate anything, because they noticed that manual upvotes of other accounts (who have delegated a lot) have nearly no effect anymore. I prefer manual voting after reading what I am voting for. I want to upvote good content and not content because it is written by a certain user. That means my Steem power must be available to be able to use it manually.
Also you yourself earn much more by the upvotes you receive for your articles than from curation rewards of your delegated Steem power. In addition the already mentioned vote buying is an abuse of receiving delegated Steem power which I observed more than once ...
But anyway, as soon as anywhere are more than one persons in the same room, there is also more than one opinion. :-)
Thank you very very much! More visibility means more people can benefit! This post was intended for beginner programmers not to waste time studying the wrong languages / tooling environments, yet to put them on the right track right away.
PS: did you also see my latest post How-to solve SPAM and Democratize Steem: Introducing UserAuthority ? If not, please consider taking a look at it. This post "How to learn programming" is helpful to beginner programmers, but my "UserAuthority" post needs as much visibility as possible, because I really believe the Steem ecosystem needs my "UserAuthority" algorithm at the core of voting!
Yes, very interesting, I upvoted that, too. Normally I don't resteem a lot, because I like my blog to stay overseeable (it's kind of a storage of my memories and ideas). I can make an exception this time though and resteem the post as well, as Steemit needs some good ideas ...
In case you are interested to read my ideas about 'diminishing returns', you may check this article.
Thx for resteeming!!!!
I've read your article Ideas for more justice on Steemit and I agree on the self-upvoting problem and also understand people would not like that idea: they simply feel it's their own right to self-upvote, and that principle follows from the ownership model / share emission system steem runs on. I don't per se think self-upvoting is the most profitable endeavor / growth-strategy btw, but that's another topic ;-)
On-topic: my UserAuthority solution exactly solves your self-upvote problem! :-)
Like this (via HF22, like I proposed at the bottom of my post:
Proposal for HF22: implement UA to curate monetary rewards (author / curation):
upvote reward = UA * SP=> that effectively combats SPAM-rewards , and limits the use of self-upvoting
If returns are diminishing, everybody still has the right to upvote himself. It is just less attractive if he is doing that again and again. It is also less attractive if he is upvoting his friends (or his multiple accounts) again and again ...
But your idea is interesting, too. The problem is if anybody is really aware of these problems and willing to solve them ...
Concerning the effectiveness of self-voting we may have different opinions. I think as soon as you have some steem power it is so easy just to write 10 minimalistic posts per day and then upvote them yourself (or with your other accounts): easy money in the short term, but bad for the Steem price in the long run ...
upvote reward = UA * SPeffectively solves the self-upvote problem, all by itself! This mechanism cannot be tricked!PS: your solution (diminishing multi-self upvotes) could be circumvented via delegating SP to self-owned upvote bot-accounts. Suppose user X, a wealthy (as in: owns much SP) self-upvoter, would delegate 10% of SP to 10 self-owned upvote bots (10 * 10% = 100% of his/her SP). Then it wouldn't be self-upvoting anymore, and each bot would only need to upvote once per post.
Sorry, I have to leave, therefore for now a short reply only: yes, you are right, by delegating Steem power my idea can be circumvented. Actually I am against delegating Steem power, too! :) Too often people who got delegated some Steem power just used it to sell their votes ... that is against the idea of seeking and rewarding good quality content.
I will read your post more thoroughly when I am back home again.
I am all for delegating SP!
.. so a lot of good can be done with delegating SP!
Please do take your time to re-read my article How-to solve SPAM and Democratize Steem: Introducing UserAuthority because "UserAuthority", really can solve a lot of Steem problems once implemented via HFs.
See ya!
First of all: it's of course no problem for me that we are of different opinions concerning Steem power delegations.
If he would upvote you regularly instead, you would collect own Steem power anyway (and his upvotes would still be more effective, because a smaller amount of his power would be delegated away from him). In the German community many people thanked me that I didn't delegate anything, because they noticed that manual upvotes of other accounts (who have delegated a lot) have nearly no effect anymore. I prefer manual voting after reading what I am voting for. I want to upvote good content and not content because it is written by a certain user. That means my Steem power must be available to be able to use it manually.Also you yourself earn much more by the upvotes you receive for your articles than from curation rewards of your delegated Steem power. In addition the already mentioned vote buying is an abuse of receiving delegated Steem power which I observed more than once ...
But anyway, as soon as anywhere are more than one persons in the same room, there is also more than one opinion. :-)