You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A fundamental change to my witness voting behavior
One thing I noticed, with my own personal voting over time, is that a good number of my witness votes are now top 20 witnesses when previously they were not. I vote for them because I believe they provide value to the ecosystem. Some obvious answers (like Jesta) were clearly always there, but some others were not and moved up to the top 20 later. Seems odd to arbitrarily determine the value of my vote based on the ranking instead of the value the actual witness provides to the network.
Any metric outside of "How valuable is this account's contribution over time?" seems like a shortcut to me. Then again, giving others a better chance to rise up into the top 20 might be a good thing to shake things up.
It's supposed to naturally be that way, right? Makes sense to have the leadership change sometimes so we can learn. It can easily be changed back again. Or am I mistaken?
Leadership change is, to me, as good as the new leaders are better than the old ones. Change for change sake isn't always a good thing (it can also lead to worse outcomes). But yes, you're right, they can easily be changed back again which is a very nice aspect of this ecosystem.
What would it hurt to do away with self upvoting? It seems to be a major point of contention between the little guys and big guys. A lot of folks complain that if you have enough SP you can just upvote yourself all the time and not worry about providing value. While it may not be the exact topic in this thread, I feel they're close. It's hard to believe it hasn't been discussed, but I haven't seen it anywhere yet.
I don't self vote (check steemreports). This has been discussed at length in many places by myself and others. It can't be stopped because of game theory dynamics and Sybil attack concerns. Many don't understand this and get frustrated asking for simple solutions to very complex problems.
SMTs will have Oracles which may allow for 1 person, 1 vote. This would involve some form of KYC or identity management (to prevent Sybil attacks) and it would be opt in. That, I think, will be the answer for those who want vote strength based on proof of human over voting weight (which tries to get close to proof of brain).
Very cool. That probably is much more technical than I can comprehend at the moment. I'll be checking for self votes as I get more into voting. Cast my first 5 votes last night, and you were definitely one. Keep up the good work.
Do you mean self voting specific to witness voting or in terms of content?
I meant upvoting one's own content. To me it cheapens the space if someone can upvote their own content and earn income from the blockchain regardless of community support. Maybe I'm thinking wrong though...
I agree with you which is why I don't vote up my own content. I leave it up to the community to decide the value of my content. If I didn't think it was valuable, I wouldn't bother posting it.
I'm late to this thread since I've only been a user for just over a week, but I'm finding this conversation very helpful. Above, you say that [self votes?] can't be stopped due to game theory dynamics and Sybil attack concerns. Do you have any pointers to posts I can read explaining this?
I think that's the point. More decentralization of power. It may not have any effect on who is in the top 20 if the top 20 are that good.
I agree, as long as the top 20 are solid and providing real value to the network, it doesn't matter to the network who they are.