oh? The whitepaper has been up dated to take into considerations hard forks 1 thru 19?
RE: Self-voting user list since HF19 - PART 2 (comments)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Self-voting user list since HF19 - PART 2 (comments)
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
The white paper deals extensively with the question of self voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
why was upvote included as the default option (from day one) on the editor?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You'd have to ask the front end developers. Though you seem to be arguing with a straw man. Have you actually looked into the self voting habits of the people in the list? Nobody is complaining about people merely upvoting their own blogs where they put significant effort to provide value.
Why was self upvoting comments not included by default, ever? Look and see what's going on and maybe you'll feel differently.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True. I always upvote my blogs, and never my comments, as per the original defaults I guess.
You can see your vote distribution here, and self-votes percentage here:
http://www.steemreports.com/votes-info/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not really about blogs and comments, it's just kind of presumed that people put more effort into top level posts, and if they're putting effort in, it's further presumed that they think it has value.
The issue is the exploitation of the reward pool. In that case a vote is not 'subjective proof of value', it is just a vote to pay yourself from the network's pocket.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I appreciate there's no real distinction between blogs and comments, in that both (or neither), can have value.
The trouble is, other votes fall into that category too, such as those from bots and trails. It's not 'subjective proof of value' if people are clicking because other people are (without viewing) is it?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not proof that the stakeholder views the specific post as valuable, but it could be indicative that someone finds it valuable. If a blogger has created 100 posts and every single one of them was good, or a voter has upvoted 100 posts and every one of them was good, it can be reasonably expected that their next vote/blog will be good as well. There are obvious flaws in this, but it can work to some degree. For some it is better to reinforce other subjective entities than to leave stake idle.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A self-voter who usually gets many 'organic' votes for their blogs, could then be forgiven for up-voting their post on this basis too I guess? I know what you mean, I end up under-voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what I'm agruing against is why it's anyone's business except for the person doing the voting?
You want more rules and regulations?
this is how you get them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How the network budget is spent is everyone's business. We're all stakeholders here, it's our budget that's being spent.
You can vote how you like, we can vote against you and we can call you out on your votes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit