Delegation Issue

3개월 전

Delegation Issue.jpg

Hello Steemians, an issue has been discovered which is preventing delegations from functioning properly. Delegations require an account to have voting mana before it can delegate. This is done to prevent malicious actors from exploiting delegations to obtain more voting mana than an account should have.

Currently, the way the blockchain is checking downvote mana returns false negatives which causes it to “believe” that an account should not be allowed to delegate any Steem Power. The false negative only presents in cases involving accounts with unusually large Steem Power holdings, which is why the behavior was not exposed through testing.

New Steem Accounts

One example of how this impacts users is that when Steemit creates accounts for new Steem users, we delegate Steem Power to them so that they can use the blockchain. Due to this issue, Steemit cannot delegate to new accounts.

The logic governing delegations resides in consensus because delegations impact how people vote, which impacts how rewards are distributed. It is important that any logic which influences the distribution of tokens be immutable and decentralized. Because this requires a consensus change, and even though the changes are minimal, this means we have to perform another hardfork. Fortunately, the minimal nature of the changes makes them easily reviewable by the Witnesses.

Because this is preventing Steemit from creating new Steem accounts, and because we will likely not have the opportunity to hardfork again until the SMT hardfork, we believe that it is best to perform this hardfork as soon as possible. We have spoken with the Witnesses and come to a consensus that the best time to execute this hardfork is 11:00 AM EDT. Because this is another hardfork it will be named 0.22.0 (or Hardfork 22).

We do not expect the user experience on steemit.com to be impacted by this hardfork

Reward Distribution

Some users have reported bugs in rewards which we have also investigated. In some cases there may be some artifacting that is a result of Hivemind's brief lag, but this is not an issue with the blockchain itself. Some users have also reported that votes are not delivering the amount of rewards that they “should.” These reports do not appear to be due to a bug, but instead highlight a fundamental misunderstanding of how votes are meant to work on Steem that is the result of the linear reward system that operated inside #OldSteem.

The goal of Proof-of-Brain is to reward people who create high-quality content as determined by the crowd. Votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people. If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.

Vote Worth

A “vote” is not “worth” anything. A vote is a signal of value and rewards should only be distributed if other people receive that signal and then amplify it by placing more votes on top of it. Under the linear rewards curve used in #OldSteem it didn’t matter what you voted on. That meant that it was easier to predict what a vote would be worth. But the problem was that it didn’t matter what you voted on. This is precisely the problem that the convergent linear reward curve was intended to solve; to make it matter again what you voted on.

On #NewSteem it matters what you vote on. That is Proof-of-Brain working.

The Steemit Team

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!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

I'm wishing all the witnesses who are still in need of catching up on sleep from HardFork21 some positive vibes in preparation of another HardFork - Appreciate all that you're doing!

·

You said it. Not just the witnesses, the developers too.

·
·

When I saw your Hardfork 22 Tomorrow post, I was sure it was a joke.

After the debacle of HF20, I figured the next once couldn’t possibly be such a fustercluck. Live and learn.

·
·
·

It's not. At least things are under control.

·
·

Indeed - and the developers too!

·

Sleep? I don't remember what it is 😵

·
·

<3 You can come relax with a beer this Saturday :')

One example of how this impacts users is that when Steemit creates accounts for new Steem users, we delegate Steem Power to them so that they can use the blockchain. Due to this issue, Steemit cannot delegate to new accounts.

Wait, do you mean to tell me that one of the key functions of one of the key actors on the entire blockchain, the ability of Steemit Inc. to make accounts and delegate resources to those accounts so that they can function on the blockchain – was never tested for this hard fork?

Because if that is what you're telling me, why should I believe that the current Witness collection who were supposed to be responsible for making sure the hard forts could maintain basic blockchain functionality are capable of doing that? This is a massive, massive failure that should have never slipped through the cracks.

Seriously. Of all things not to test, that Steemit could successfully make and delegate functioning new accounts, the one thing the blockchain and social networks which depend on it all required to function, should have never been left to chance.

The goal of Proof-of-Brain is to reward people who create high-quality content as determined by the crowd.Votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people. If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.

Yes, that's the goal. The problem is that this description captures the essential failure of the underlying design. You see, people don't vote to control what "the crowd" determines to be "high quality content." People vote to denominate what they believe high quality content to be – and intend to reward. When that content is not rewarded despite their vote, they become cranky, and justly so. They have accurately and perfectly observed that their actions have no consequence or meaning within the context you have defined.

The ultimate problem is that you have not created a system which is in any way proof-of-brain. On the contrary, you have created a system which is a betting pool. An upvote does not communicate that a user believes that the content is valuable. On the contrary, an upvote is a bet with a value people to the portion of SP which is temporarily unavailable due to placing that but, with the expectation that other people will recognize the target as worthy of putting a bet on themselves.

And that's all that it means.

It has nothing, literally nothing, to do with the quality of the post or the content of the post. A profitable ("successful") upvote just means that the voter has determined that others are likely to upvote on the same content.

This is what passes for "curation" on the Steem blockchain. Again, it has nothing to do with the actual content or with how useful, well-written, or well presented that content is – but only what the likelihood that other people will vote on that content is.

Despite the number of times that you say so, upvote is not a signal of value and never has been. It's a signal of what some user or by believes other users and bots will vote on.

As a result, it's not surprising at all that the content tends to be monotonal, unimaginative, and often mechanically generated. It doesn't matter if the rewards curve is exponential or linear – only that the underlying reward mechanic is based on betting on what other people are going to vote on. There is no value in voting for things which you find interesting, desirable, or creative, there is only value in trying to predict what others will find to be safe bets.

Uniqueness, rarity, and anything out of what passes for the mainstream of votes is actively punished. As you say, "votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people."

And since all of the above is scaled by SP, what you really mean is "votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by a whale."

If there is any surprise about the content which finds its way to Trending or why bots are rampant on the platform, it's right here. And it will never change.

·

You have made some exceptional points here, and have continued to make them, especially in relation to vote betting, and how the term used here - "high quality", doesn't mean that at all . I hope someone with the power to affect change pays attention to the feedback being given.

But I am a tiny stakeholder and ultimately meaningless in a world where proof-of-stake is the only major differentiator that matters a damn. It doesn't matter what I write, it doesn't matter what I do, it doesn't matter what I vote for, it doesn't matter how eloquent I am – I simply don't matter.

You have accurately surmised how this fork as made a lot of people feel. Like they don't matter.

It feels like steemit doesn't value the majority of its users as the minority hold a bigger combined stake. The curve goes against the small-big user is favor of the larger, the vote distribution and the latest revelation that this goes further than I had thought, where a vote from a big user doesn't mean anything unless it is backed up with enough votes from other users. It really kicks. My vote isn't worth much, but if i find an unrelated post, from a user who has made great content but hasn't caught the eye of others, my vote being diminished by the fact no one else found the really good post I had upvoted doesn't seem right. I appreciate this is more about the crowd than the individual, and this way small users can gain ground through upvoting big users and getting a tiny bit of curation. But the crowd is made of individuals, so i wonder if maybe focusing on building a platform that best serves the average user would help encourage growth?

These changes really feel like they are going to feed bidbots.

Say a lone curator upvotes me, if I want their vote to have the value they intended, I have to either hope enough other users, with enough power, agree. Or i can reinforce it with bidbots. I am not a bidbot user, talking hypothetically here, yes the bidbot gets a 50% curation cut, but confident the bidbots have adapted to that, and if the bidbot increases the value of other users votes, then it is worth it despite the curation cut. That combined with the increase in the curation cut, and the new payout curve, no wonder people are shocked at how little their posts are worth.

The flags are already an under estimated problem.

Now, a flag has more power. Some one petty down votes me because they were pretending I was their girlfriend, and I found out and was understandably not okay with that. I don't think that's a good reason to flag everything a person does. Before this fork, that flag used to have no power, their flagging behavior hasn't changed, but their flag now takes value away from my comments/posts. I tried to express my concerns about this on a previous post, saying I didn't think I was alone in being bully flagged for none-content reasons and that I didn't think that kind of flagging was good for the platform, (and did meet someone people who want to help) but that comment got flagged by a big and unstoppable user who disagreed. That one users flags (from their various accounts) stripped away a value accrued by 180+ other users. The crowd determined a value, and one person with a lot of SP was able to take it away with their downvote. That doesn't reflect the opinion of the group, and the culture and principles behind flagging need to be addressed, not made worse with the encouraging of comparative flagging.

It feels like steemit is becoming a place where trying to say anything makes you a target.

Diversity, and sincere engaged disagreement can bring amazing positive change, it is a chance for people to evaluate their own position, improve their understand, and learn. If someone disagrees, please tell me, I want to understand why, not to argue with you, but to better understand my own perspective and learn something about yours. Downvotes don't help that, and I don't see how that element is going to attract new users. Debate, and open discussion however, does attract people who want to get involved. Hell, I am here commenting on this.

Although that said, i think this is probably the end of a girl who doesn't matter commenting with an opinion that doesn't matter, even if all the people who don't matter express it, when no one who matters cares, it feels pointless. But I am so grateful there are people like you who are still putting themselves out there and commenting, saying what so many may feel but may not feel empowered enough to say.

Thank you <3

·
·

You have made some exceptional points here, and have continued to make them, especially in relation to vote betting, and how the term used here - "high quality", doesn't mean that at all . I hope someone with the power to affect change pays attention to the feedback being given.

Let me do my best to set expectations appropriately. These are things that I have been beating on as a regular issue since I started posting to the platform years ago. Unlike a lot of people, I started by actually reading the white paper and understanding enough about game theory and mechanics to see what it actually said and be able to know that what I was being told it was being said was a lie. So I came into this with my eyes open. And in fact, I can link to an article that I wrote where I go on about that for some time, particularly as regards the folk betting pool and implications of top down "valuation" that might interest you if it doesn't make your eyes glaze over.

Steemit and The Dynamic of the Authoritarian in Assumption

This is one of those pieces that I wish could be evergreen rewarded because I end up citing it a lot.

It feels like steemit doesn't value the majority of its users as the minority hold a bigger combined stake. The curve goes against the small-big user is favor of the larger, the vote distribution and the latest revelation that this goes further than I had thought, where a vote from a big user doesn't mean anything unless it is backed up with enough votes from other users.

See, this isn't new. This is the way that it has always worked, it's just that this is the latest opportunity to talk about this being the way that it's always worked. Always. That the curve is flatter and now biased against the original creator just in general with the basic ratio simply makes the situation worse for people who thought that they could be creators and competitive earners on the platform.

You (and I and my weaker moments) labored under the belief that while our vote was small and probably worth only a few tenths of a cent in the greater pool of money that was being given out, when we gave an upvote at least it was going to give what tiny amount of value that we could give in support and if a lot of people were doing so, so much the better for the creator, right? More votes equals more money, more money equals more reward, more reward, means more things that we are likely to want to vote up in the future.

But now you find out it doesn't actually work much like that at all. That unless a bunch of people whose opinion happens to agree with yours who are also limited with how much they can give because of low SP also vote up that piece of content, the cumulative amount is beneath the level of "dust," and the creator gets nothing. At all. If you do happen to attract the attention of a significant stakeholder whose vote exceeds the dust level, you do so knowing that even if they vote up that content, unless there are a fairly significant number of similarly scaled stakeholders also voting it up, their vote doesn't matter that much either. In fact, the only value to you and the content indirectly is that you can make more for having uploaded the article in question followed by the significant stakeholder upvoting that content than the actual creator does, depending on how the curation numbers eventually settle out.

So content valuation doesn't reward finding new, interesting authors and creators, and rewarding them, it rewards figuring out what kind of content bigger players than you frequent and upvoting that content before those bigger players do in order to get your maximum curation rewards, and it doesn't matter what that content is at all.

That results in just creating a race to finding the most monocultural content which caters to the upper strata of stakeholders and only that. If you want your curation to actually provide for school utility to you, that's what you have to do. And if you're a stakeholder of significant worth, it's in your best interest to have a very predictable slate of things that you are interested in and make sure that list is very publicly known so that it can be rewarded by you and your proxies to reap maximum benefit.

You'll notice, at no time did I bring in what that content actually is – because it just doesn't matter.

This is the reality we have been living with on this blockchain since the beginning. Sometimes it's tuned to favor one group over another just a little bit but this is the underlying architecture. I'm sorry if it is disappointing, because watching it long enough to figure it out myself filled me with enough disappointment to load up a couple of buckets.

Say a lone curator upvotes me, if I want their vote to have the value they intended, I have to either hope enough other users, with enough power, agree. Or i can reinforce it with bidbots. I am not a bidbot user, talking hypothetically here, yes the bidbot gets a 50% curation cut, but confident the bidbots have adapted to that, and if the bidbot increases the value of other users votes, then it is worth it despite the curation cut. That combined with the increase in the curation cut, and the new payout curve, no wonder people are shocked at how little their posts are worth.

From the perspective of you and I, what we really want is for our vote to have a consistent, predictable value, however small.

If 10,000 SP is the inflation rate for every blockchain cycle, let us say (and these numbers are very, very arbitrary and ratios will be very, very arbitrary as well), there is 1,000,000 SP in the pool, and we hold 1000 SP (which really makes us a significant stakeholder given the actual curves, but we'll ignore that for now), you would think that your vote, each and every one, would be worth 1,000,000÷1000 = 1000 STEEM. The actual value in real money varies based on how much one STEEM goes for on the market, but again we'll leave that aside. We control 1/1000 of the SP in play and thus have a reasonable expectation of being able to direct 1/1000 of the 10,000 SP inflationary reward pool, or 1000 SP's worth.

Even if our vote goes to a piece of content which no one else votes for, with our stake you would expect the creator would receive a cut of the rewards pool equal to 1000 SP.

But thanks to a really complicated means of working out power decay, total amount of SP actually being leveraged in terms of votes, the skim off the top for the Witnesses, voting windows (which thankfully have shrunk to five minutes, even though that seems a little wonky, too), it's just not anywhere near that valuation. And aside from software tools which have been inconsistent about how they calculate the results of a really complicated process, we can't actually know how much our vote is worth, and the whole thing turns into an exercise in wishful thinking.

On top of all this, beyond all of this, there is the fact that bid bots are simply better at playing the game then you or I. We don't watch the whole blockchain constantly for content that might be useful to us. There is no way that we can work the windows to be advantageous; we just don't consume content fast enough. The big players can afford to invest in bid bots which specifically focus their fields of interest, and because there is a significant amount of SP in play, direct or delegated, it's in your best interest to try and use systems which pay attention and get in the front of those vote trains. Because that's where the money's at.

A bid bot never increases the value of other users votes. A bid bot acts as a collective proxy for delegated SP which is effectively voting power. One which can vote at a very precise time and which then redistributes the income that he gets for that curation act to its investors who paid for it. In the proportion that those investors paid.

As such, if you are not using the bid bot, your vote is less likely to drop on content right at the right time unless you got there before the bid bot. The increasing curation payout is just gravy on top that makes running a bid bot more valuable, not just to the owner but to the people using it – and again, we are deliberately not talking about the content of the post in question because it simply doesn't matter. All that matters is the mechanical interaction and timing, and the content can be completely arbitrary.

That one users flags (from their various accounts) stripped away a value accrued by 180+ other users. The crowd determined a value, and one person with a lot of SP was able to take it away with their downvote. That doesn't reflect the opinion of the group, and the culture and principles behind flagging need to be addressed, not made worse with the encouraging of comparative flagging.

But this is exactly in line with the underlying design of the system which is, I remind you, proof-of-stake. The only thing that matters is how much SP is moving. That nearly 200 other users have collectively acted doesn't matter, because the only thing they are and represent is some pool of stake. The only thing that's important about them is how much SP they possess. When a much bigger player comes along who has more SP than they do collectively, a single downvote (which now every single bigger player has more of for free) nullifies all of those upvotes.

Again, a reminder, this is a proof of stake system and the only number that matters is your stake. When they talk about large number of lesser stakeholders being able to band together and make significant impacts to the platform, what they mean is if there is something that attracts the attention of all of those tiny minnows consistently, they can have an effect. As you can imagine, doing so is very difficult and inconsistent, because with 200 people is very difficult to find something they all care about and are interested in. They are 200 individuals with the interests of 200 individuals.

As opposed to the focus of the same amount of SP wielded by a single individual.

This is the basics, the underpinnings, of a proof of stake system. The Steem blockchain has always been a proof of stake system. That's its nature.

Diversity, and sincere engaged disagreement can bring amazing positive change, it is a chance for people to evaluate their own position, improve their understand, and learn. If someone disagrees, please tell me, I want to understand why, not to argue with you, but to better understand my own perspective and learn something about yours. Downvotes don't help that, and I don't see how that element is going to attract new users. Debate, and open discussion however, does attract people who want to get involved. Hell, I am here commenting on this.

Here's the thing about downvotes/flags:

They only happen when you should come on the content that you believe should be flagged.

I want to point out how much "the community" goes on about how important it is to deploy your downvotes strategically in order to "maintain the rewards pool." But the actual mechanical intervention with the flag system only happens when you find that content.

Normal people don't go out of their way to find content they think should be unrewarded. For the most part, normal people are most likely to run into comment spam, where they will deploy their downvote, it will be largely meaningless because, like everything else, it's scaled by SP, but they will have indicated this should be unrewarded and they will move on. Day-to-day, they will not run into content which they think should be unrewarded (in the active sense). Normal, sane people don't go out of their way to find content they don't want.

However, a basic observation of the mechanics suggests that to maximally increase the rewards on things that you do want to be rewarded, you have to go out and actively use every bit of your SP that isn't involved in upvoting content you think should be rewarded in downvoting things that you think should be unrewarded. Before this hard fork, that was a legitimate trade-off. SP committed to increasing the rewards for a thing could simultaneously be used to decrease the rewards for another thing which indirectly would increase the rewards for the first thing and everything else. Now, with free downvotes which will not diminish your SP/VP for the use of upvoting, all of that "ghost SP" can and will be used by people with automated systems for personal vendettas, general malfeasance, and sometimes even the intention for which it has been suggested, unrewarding spammers and conmen.

But I wouldn't expect it.

Although that said, i think this is probably the end of a girl who doesn't matter commenting with an opinion that doesn't matter, even if all the people who don't matter express it, when no one who matters cares, it feels pointless. But I am so grateful there are people like you who are still putting themselves out there and commenting, saying what so many may feel but may not feel empowered enough to say.

Well, you can always aspire to my place in the ecosystem. I say what I want, when I want, to whom I want, secure in the truth that I don't matter, I don't have enough SP for one of the major players to want to go out of their way and swat me down on a regular basis, I don't write about anything that they find particularly interesting one way or another, and so I avoid most of the calumny that comes with being outspoken.

I recognize and accept that I just don't matter – and I'm okay with that.

Once in a while I get annoyed enough to stir from my cave and wander out, bellow at the world for a while, and then get bored and go back to my cave where all my games, communications equipment, and everything that actually does pay me lives.

What I like to see the Steem blockchain turn into a useful platform or series of platforms? Sure. I like to see things work. Do I believe it's going to? At an essential, mechanical level it is actively geared against doing so – so no. And that's a shame.

Can I offer you some popcorn? I brought some just for this occasion.

·
·
·

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I have been experiencing a lot of anxiety about using the platform.

Let me do my best to set expectations appropriately.

I am not expecting anything, I know people don't listen, and their goals aren't what the users want from the platform, but hey, can hope! I am not here to make money, I was getting everything I wanted from the communities here, I wasn't trying to say I expect all this to happen, just that you have made a lot of good points, and although I didn't go through and quote them all, when I said I hope someone listens, I was just trying to be positive, and essentially second what you'd said on the rare off chance someone might actually. I don't expect it at all.

Unlike a lot of people, I started by actually reading the white paper

You're right, I had a vague idea but didn't read it all, my other half did and came to that same conclusion, but thought it might be a good opportunity for me anyway, not to make money, just in terms of the communities and feeling like I have a reason to create.

I wish could be evergreen rewarded because I end up citing it a lot.

It is a fair point, there is no distinction between something of lasting quality that will be referenced for years to come, and something meant for one time viewing. You can write something with lasting value, but you don't get to see that. I have seen a fair few of those endlessly useful posts, far too old to show the love on!

See, this isn't new. This is the way that it has always worked, it's just that this is the latest opportunity to talk about this being the way that it's always worked. Always. That the curve is flatter and now biased against the original creator just in general with the basic ratio simply makes the situation worse for people who thought that they could be creators and competitive earners on the platform.

I am not saying it is new, just worse. I realized a long time ago this isn't a place for actual creators, its great for fun, and community projects, but actual creators have to devalue their work to put it on here. I have seen so many fade off the platform because they were losing money posting something here instead of somewhere else, and too principled to put it on both. You're right, what the content is doesn't really matter.

I did know about the dust vote level, but see I need you like on tap, i can be eloquent but rarely have the time. You have put so well the problem of it being more profitable for big users to upvote "safe" bets.

From the perspective of you and I, what we really want is for our vote to have a consistent, predictable value, however small.

That is it exactly, we work hard to accrue it, we want it to have value. The system that assigns value is so complicated, the ordinary user struggles to grasp it. Even having it explained like that. A family member joined and asked me how much she would need to invest for her vote to have value, I couldn't tell her, and she never did.

A bid bot never increases the value of other users votes.

According to this post, it will.

If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.
A “vote” is not “worth” anything. A vote is a signal of value and rewards should only be distributed if other people receive that signal and then amplify it by placing more votes on top of it.

This post literally states that a lone vote has no value unless it's backed up by more votes. So say a lone curator with plenty of SP upvotes your post at 100%, but no one else does, you won't get anything still. (I say you, more likely to affect new/small users who don't have a following.) So if you want to be able to get that curation vote from a lone curator (not a trail) you need to get more votes somehow, which means something like using bidbots, or resteem and upvote service. I was talking about using bidbots as in paying them to upvote a post, not as in following the vote, but that is a good way to max curation, sure you are right and there will be plenty more.

That nearly 200 other users have collectively acted doesn't matter, because the only thing they are and represent is some pool of stake.

You are right, that is how it works, but that isn't what steemit are telling us in this post, they are saying the crowd is what matters, it's not me who needs the reminders that isn't what we have lol

As you can imagine, doing so is very difficult and inconsistent, because with 200 people is very difficult to find something they all care about and are interested in. They are 200 individuals with the interests of 200 individuals.

what they mean is if there is something that attracts the attention of all of those tiny minnows consistently, they can have an effect

But i'm not talking hypothetically, I left a comment about bully-flagging, and it was upvoted by over 180 minnows, and they did manage to have an effect, which was flagged away by one whale. I am not arguing with you, I was pointing out in this post, steemit tell us the crowd matters, and quality matters, and one person can't determine that, but that isn't how it works.

Normal people don't go out of their way to find content they think should be unrewarded. For the most part, normal people are most likely to run into comment spam, where they will deploy their downvote

People have been flagging opinions they don't like to hide them this entire time, and you must have equally seen the flag wars on here, where people disagree with what someone else says, and flags them because they have a different opinion, and how chaotic that gets, and how many other users end up getting "spatter flagged"

But I wouldn't expect it.

Why? I was all the way with you dude, but can't follow the logic there. It has got worse for me since this. Before it was some comments, now it is everything I do, because they can flag me without using their main upvote pool so can flag me more. It isn't automated, it is straight up bullying. People get hurt easily, and some of them take things very badly (FYI this person is flagged me because they were posting pictures of me on social media claiming I was their girlfriend, and I think mocking - I couldn't tell if they were saying the things to mock me or as sincere lies, either way I found out and when they refused to take it down, I reported it, it wasn't even on this platform, they have been steadily flagging me for months since).

Most of the flagging I see is for being friends with someone, for upvoting the wrong person, and over a difference of opinion. People end up "weaponised" where they have all this undirected anger, they can't stop the flags because there is no reason for them, and end up flagging back. Only recently I met a great user (user A) who found out a bigger user (user B) was doing something dodgy, they mentioned it in a comment/post, and user B flagged them. User A couldn't stop user B then flagging every comment and post the made. User B couldn't draw attention to it, because their posts and comments were getting hidden. They ended up so frustrated they flagging everyone who upvoted the recent posts by User B, as they saw those people as supporting user B. I totally get how it is supposed to be used, but that isn't the reality, and I feel like there is a problem being overlooked by so many people weighing in on this.

Well, you can always aspire to my place in the ecosystem. I say what I want, when I want, to whom I want, secure in the truth that I don't matter

Believe me, i do an exceptional job of not mattering in every way possible, in every other aspect of my life and wholeheartedly embrace the freedom of total insignificance. I just need to attain that level of meaningless here. I'll make it haha

Now that's an offer I can't refuse ;)

·
·
·
·

But i'm not talking hypothetically, I left a comment about bully-flagging, and it was upvoted by over 180 minnows, and they did manage to have an effect, which was flagged away by one whale. I am not arguing with you, I was pointing out in this post, steemit tell us the crowd matters, and quality matters, and one person can't determine that, but that isn't how it works.

They also tell us, simultaneously, that it's a Proof of Stake system and the more stake you hold, the more power you have in the ecosystem.

Unfortunately, you have described the exact and perfect scenario which states both of those things are true.

Which is exactly the problem. Or at least one of the problems. It takes very little effort for someone with a relatively significant stake to cancel out the accumulated dust affect of a quite large number of "normal users" on the platform. And that's literally as designed if we look at the design documents and even the code. That is my intention.

We both know and have experienced the inevitable fallout of that.

People have been flagging opinions they don't like to hide them this entire time, and you must have equally seen the flag wars on here, where people disagree with what someone else says, and flags them because they have a different opinion, and how chaotic that gets, and how many other users end up getting "spatter flagged"

You're making an invalid assumption here. The people that were describing engaging in this behavior are not "normal users" in the sense of any other social media platform. But because Steemit has turned into a game for many of the people who are involved, a game where the goal is to not just get the biggest numbers, but to make sure that the "other team" whoever you define it to be gets smaller numbers. Oh yes, and you don't get to choose whether you're playing the game or on what team you seem to be assigned.

I want to reiterate, this is not normal. This is a direct side effect of the way that the mechanics are being interpreted by the kind of people who are generally into cryptocultism. The mechanics create this kind of play and distinctly, aggressively downplay content.

This is not normal.

Why? I was all the way with you dude, but can't follow the logic there. It has got worse for me since this. Before it was some comments, now it is everything I do, because they can flag me without using their main upvote pool so can flag me more.

This may come as some surprise to you – but you attracted the attention of the wrong crowd. That's not to say you did it deliberately or that it's your fault, but that's a thing that happened. You managed to fall into the eye of the people playing what I am increasingly thinking of as "the Steem blockchain game." (I'll probably come up with a catchier phrase to describe it later, but this is what I've got for now.)

You're absolutely correct that the amount of free flags that they get as a result of last hard fork just make their job of trolling that much easier. It literally costs them nothing to be a bigger asshole, so they are. The original argument for the change in downvotes in this last fork was that it would give everyone equally more power to downvote other things, and taken in aggregate everything would equal out – but anyone who had actually been involved with the community and watched how it did things can and did predict that "griefer style" downvoting was going to happen. Absolutely, without question, 100%.

I want to say one more time, that is not "normal user behavior." It is uncommon but significant user behavior on a platform which has this incentivized healthier forms of inter-user interaction. They have driven out people who interact more healthily (except for we few relatively sane though obviously masochistic users) in favor of people who want to play the game.

This is a real problem and it sucks that you're stuck in the middle of it. A same design would have not increased to the number of downvotes but would have eliminated them completely.

"How then could we as a community act against spammers and abusers and the like?" you might ask.

"By voting up content that you do like aggressively," I would reply.

"But spammers and abusers tend to have large pools of SP which gives their votes for their own content larger pull in a proof of stake system! The people who are actually engaged with content that they like and which have value don't have, in aggregate, as much SP – or at least not enough to make the reward pool tilt sufficiently the other direction so that spamming and abusing are no longer valuable."

"Congratulations!" I exclaim. "You have successfully observed to the problems with proof of stake systems and an expectation of control of abuse. This is what happens when you allow other people whom have earned no degree of trust with you to determine what you can see and what you can't see."

Because the curve of stake allocation on the Steem blockchain is so aggressively exponential, it doesn't take much for one person to have sufficient SP to be effectively able to run roughshod over the average user and all of their friends. The dust rolloff just makes it that much worse.

Again, I want to emphasize, this is a side effect of the user base not being normal as a result of simple observation of the mechanics and what they reward. Normal people are not going to go out of their way to find things they want to flag or chase people they want to flag. That is not normal behavior. It has become consistent behavior here, but it's not normal.

Believe me, i do an exceptional job of not mattering in every way possible, in every other aspect of my life and wholeheartedly embrace the freedom of total insignificance. I just need to attain that level of meaningless here. I'll make it haha

Now that's an offer I can't refuse ;)

There's a certain joy in recognizing that I'm just not interesting enough to be chased for downvotes. I mean, sure, people certainly could. I probably pissed off a few in my day. But at this point they wouldn't be accomplishing much to do so because I just moved on to other platforms for most of the stuff that I want to do, because this place just doesn't provide the kind of rewards (not just physically but emotionally) that someplace with a healthier user base, not in terms of number but in terms of behavior, provides.

There are ways that the core mechanics of the Steem blockchain could be changed to work around the fact that proof of stake effectively means it's trivial to bully you and the free downvotes make it not just trivial but downright free. It would require a complete change of underlying philosophy, however, and that's just not going to happen. You can see how much that's not going to happen by looking at the social media blockchain experiments which have happened since the Steem blockchain came together. All of them hinge on that idea of authoritarian, top-down, "all of us are better at deciding what is good for you than you are" type of judgment. And that's terrible! That's how you get in this mess.

Individuation is a philosophy on the outs in the social network community, and that's a terrible shame.

·
·
·

Should Steem suggest content to you like YouTube does?

·
·
·
·

It could – and it probably should if it wants to keep up with the social media essential core values, which are pretty simple and straightforward to express:

Engaging with the platform should get me more of what I want.

As it stands, engaging with the platform doesn't necessarily get me more of what I want. It's very difficult to find things on topics I'm interested in. My rewards for voting up things I'm interested in are pretty minimal unless everyone else is interested in them. Voting up things I'm interested in doesn't mean that the system can and will find other things I'm interested in and show them to me. There's no way to filter the fire hose of new content if I just want to look at the stream based on things that I've already shown the system I'm interested in.

The one thing that the traditional traditional Steem blockchain does well is threading conversations which hang off the bottom of the post. For that, it actually helps find things I'm interested in and follow the threads of conversation. Positives where positives are due.

In almost every other way, the Steem digital applications lag far behind even the basic functionality of Reddit – and that is really saying something.

There are a lot of things that front end applications on the Steem blockchain should do in order to surface content and make interacting with the platform emotionally rewarding, and one of the things that they could do is put together decent suggestions for content like YouTube does.

·
·
·
·
·

Should Steemit function more like Twitter?

·
·
·
·
·
·

Steemit should function less like Twitter. It already replicates entirely too much of its functionality from the user experience of the normal user.

There is a fire hose of content. It is difficult to find content which you are interested in. If you find a source of content which you like, there's no guarantee that new content will be similar. If you are a creator, there's no guarantee that you can get your work in front of people who are interested in seeing work like yours. You spend a lot of time telling the system what sort of things that you like, but the system never changes its behavior as regards what it does as a result of you doing all that telling. The fire hoses undifferentiated, there's no way to cluster content for presentation, no way to filter aside from picking some people that you follow.

For the vast majority of the Steemit experience, it is exactly like Twitter – except for the fact that you can have properly, nicely threaded comments underneath posts which give conversations a sense of context, a sense of place, and allow lines of reasoning. It's a pity that actually reading those comments is annoying, frustrating, and can't even match the experience provided by low-end USENET readers from the early 90s.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Main Stream Twitter

One of the problems is simply that Steem is so much smaller than Twitter, etc. And keep in mind that Facebook, etc, were forced upon humans in a wide variety of ways. They had a lot of help making it go main stream.

UseNET

What is Usenet? Is this Usenet? I'm reading about it on Wikipedia. It appears to be peer to peer to some extent. It appears to be focused on the news. According to Wikipedia, it says: Usenet (/ˈjuːznɛt/) is a worldwide distributed discussion system available on computers. So, I can see an analogy inside. I think I understand your comparison between Steem and Usenet. Yeah, you might be right concerning the User Interface (UI) within Steemit, that it can be annoying, difficult, etc, to read comments like you said. Busy.org might be a little better in some ways.

Mea Omnia

I was a web designer for a website called Mea Omnia (MeaOmnia.com) around 2011-2013. Mea Omnia means My Everything in Latin. So, we were trying to make Mea Omnia into something like Facebook, Steemit, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc, combined. I say that to say that I know some of it might be tough to do, and yet I am guessing that Steemit could probably do better in regards to finding ways to give users more customization options which MySpace had. That is what we were focused on with Mea Omnia, trying to find ways to give users options. We ended up abandoning that Mea Omnia project. So, I'm no computer expert and yet even I get some of it. I don't really know a lot of code, but I know how to Google it and put things together sometimes.

Facebook Groups

If Steem does not already have groups or communities, then perhaps that would help. I thought I heard some people talking about how that new feature would be launching with HF21. I will be looking around to see whatever happened to that.

·
·
·

"Once in a while I get annoyed enough to stir from my cave and wander out, bellow at the world for a while, and then get bored and go back to my cave..."

'I sound my barbaric yawp across the rooftops of the world...'--Walt Whitman 'Leaves of Grass'

Good company, I reckon.

Thanks!

·

"votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by a whale." Which means be should be a whale or we vote for the whale who is self voting?

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·

Effectively? If you're a whale, anything you vote for is going to gain in value and see a notable reward. If you're not a whale, if you want significant curation value, you want to vote for things that whales will vote for slightly after you.

This has always been true because it's an inherent description of how the Steem blockchain decides value, but now under HF 22, with the $20 breakpoint S-curve, unless something is valued at least $20, the further from it you get the less rewards you get for creating or curating it. The natural effect being that both curators and creators will only target content that they feel relatively secure will earn over $20 – and if you look at the distribution of rewards over the last three years, that's actually a relatively tiny part of the content on the platform which is extremely monocultural.

·

The Bananafish community, made by small users who love to write fiction and poetry, is with you @lextenebris. Cheers to your critical mind.

·

Because if that is what you're telling me, why should I believe that the current Witness collection who were supposed to be responsible for making sure the hard forts could maintain basic blockchain functionality are capable of doing that?

We do the best we can with what we have. which is a very limited test suite in the code base itself as well as a testnet which runs mostly independently of the main net and where it is a tremendous amount of work required to try to reproduce main net conditions (and even that can never be done perfectly).

In cases of small patches we can also do independent code reviews but that isn't feasible for major release on a large codebase, at least not given the current size of the economy (perhaps with more value to work with we could pay for comprehensive professional reviews, but currently we can not). Even with the new SPS, the resources available for tasks will be much smaller than the potential number of things those resources could be spent on. Again, we do the best we can with what we have.

If we wanted to wait until everything were perfect we would never get anywhere. Progress is being made and improvements will continue to be made for future releases as noted in the post. It is an ongoing incremental process.

Despite the number of times that you say so, upvote is not a signal of value and never has been. It's a signal of what some user or by believes other users and bots will vote on.

This is indeed a signal of consensus that the content is value-adding because the one thing that all stakeholders have in common is wanting their stake to increase in value. If you bet on content getting upvoted by other stakeholders when that content does not contribute significant value, you are much more likely to be wrong than when you bet on content that does. Sure, there are other factors at play and individual cases can certainly vary, but that is the core of it.

HF19/HF20 did not accomplish this very well. HF21 remains an experiment and we'll see if accomplishes it at least somewhat better. If not, well Steem itself is also an experiment in progress and we can iterate.

And since all of the above is scaled by SP, what you really mean is "votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by a whale."

No, that is not what it means and there are plenty of rewards paid out with NO whale votes. Yes, those who own a larger share of the system and with more value at stake have a larger say in how their resources are used and distributed, as with any business (although it isn't so common with most businesses that every user can earn or buy a larger stake in the platform). (Again, I'm referring here to how it is supposed to work and not how HF19/HF20 was working, which was indeed very poorly.)

·
·

If we wanted to wait until everything were perfect we would never get anywhere. Progress is being made and improvements will continue to be made for future releases as noted in the post.

There are three things that the Steem blockchain absolutely needs to happen on a regular basis without fail to be considered functional:

Firstly, it needs to be able to be posted to in order for there to be content to drive the rest of the activity. (Hard fork 21 actually failed this test for quite a while.)

Secondly, it needs to be able to register votes in order to drive the distribution of tokens around content which is posted to the blockchain.

Thirdly, and arguably more important than the first two in some ways, is the ability to have new accounts created on a regular basis so that more people can become involved in both creation and "curation" on the blockchain. Without new accounts being created there is, effectively, no blockchain – especially with the rate at which user interaction is shrinking month over month.

Any testing regimen that does not involve testing these three things first and foremost, right out of the gate, is not a testing regimen for the Steem blockchain. It's a lie and it's a joke, but it's not a testing regimen.

You may think this is overly harsh and phrased too aggressively, but let me tell you that I am deliberately turning it down a couple of notches over what I really think. When I say this is a massive, massive failure that reflects a complete disconnect between what the Witnesses should have been doing and what they were actually doing, I'm being kind and grandfatherly.

You literally have three jobs. Make sure the content can continue coming in. Make sure the content can be voted on. And make sure there are new people coming in to help drive the platform. Everything else is secondary at best and way down the line at worst.

I'm not saying to wait until everything is perfect, though with the amount of obsessive crypto cultists hanging out on Steemit, that might be a good plan considering that I've heard people saying that the Steem blockchain is the salvation of mankind, but I am saying that if I were employing you, and this were my business, you would be out on your ass. No if's, and's, or but's.

But I am a tiny stakeholder and ultimately meaningless in a world where proof-of-stake is the only major differentiator that matters a damn. It doesn't matter what I write, it doesn't matter what I do, it doesn't matter what I vote for, it doesn't matter how eloquent I am – I simply don't matter. And since that's the case, I have an amazing ability to speak freely and not care.

I want to be really clear, this is not personal. You seem to be a perfectly reasonable human being who is extremely devoted to what you're doing. I respect that. As far as it goes, and as much as I respect anybody who's doing this, I respect you – but that doesn't have anything to do with the job that I see having been done on hard fork 21 and now hard fork 22.

I would expect someone to fall on their swords for this sort of thing out in the real business world. Someone would lose their job. Not being able to onboard users for even an hour, much less a day, is a death sentence. It's a social media platform first and foremost, and while onboarding has been outsourced to some tiny degree, the numbers don't lie. All of this delegation mechanical breakage is an active detriment.

Again, it's not personal. It's purely professional. Which is more than I can say about how the last couple of hard fork sudden pursued, and someone needs to say it openly.

So I'm doing so.

·
·
·

Hard fork 21 actually failed this test for quite a while

You mean 20?

Again, it's not personal. It's purely professional

Taken as such.

By all means, vote against all of the current witnesses (indeed especially the witnesses at the time of HF20) but it is my sincere belief that other witnesses could do no better under the circumstances, and could certainly do worse. It is not even clear to me that you know what witnesses do. But that may not matter to you and wanting to seeing someone fall on a sword is a defensible response to bad outcomes.

You literally have three jobs. Make sure the content can continue coming in. Make sure the content can be voted on. And make sure there are new people coming in to help drive the platform. Everything else is secondary at best and way down the line at worst.

I'm afraid I must disagree to a point. Those tasks are important for sure, but as you say the user interaction is still shrinking month after month. What good is that? Looking at the broader picture I do believe that we need to balance making progress in improving the platform with the uninterrupted operation of the platform. Rejecting all forks or rejecting all forks with are not rigorously tested and audited (nearly equivalent in practice at this juncture) would certainly optimize uptime and minimize risks but it would not necessarily optimize for improvement which can ultimately turn around the (lack of) growth trajectory. My view is that this balance takes precedence, even though it isn't always an easy task.

·
·
·
·

You mean 20?

I was going to let that one go, but -- yes, yes, that one, too. The last several HF have been terrible from a mechanical point of view and really hurt the overall set of platforms that have been trying to leverage the blockchain.

By all means, vote against all of the current witnesses (indeed especially the witnesses at the time of HF20) but it is my sincere belief that other witnesses could do no better under the circumstances, and could certainly do worse. It is not even clear to me that you know what witnesses do. But that may not matter to you and wanting to seeing someone fall on a sword is a defensible response to bad outcomes.

Here is part of my problem in a nutshell…

I absolutely agree with you that other witnesses could have done no better under the circumstances and could have certainly done worse.

That is a problem. When the best that I can hope for as a user of the platform is that the people who are ostensibly most invested and most interested in that platform being stable, growing, and improving its financial returns so that they are financial returns grow in common, end up repeatedly failing to maintain the basic operation of that platform that they are at least ostensibly charged with preserving for their own best interest not just mine – it's deeply troubling. When I agree that, given the circumstances, I can't figure out how someone else could have done a better job (except in testing very basic functionality which makes up some of the most common transactions on the blockchain, which any reasonable engineer would have tested first), that makes me terribly aware that the underlying technology and "circumstances" themselves are aggressively against doing what I consider as both an engineer and someone with a financial interest to be best practice.

Ultimately this is a bad situation for everyone, but it's particularly bad for the Witnesses.

And I'll be honest, even after several years on this platform, I'm not sure that I can reasonably state what Witnesses do – because not even the Witnesses have a consistent, reasonable answer to that outstanding question beyond "get paid to run servers which maintain the consistency of the blockchain and, theoretically, decide collectively on when to accept the deployment of a hard fork" – which they have never denied, even though we have had several which have been absolute, complete, unquestionable debacles.

There's a lot of talk about trying to pick Witnesses who are invested in the community, who have good ideas for future development, and all sorts of other crap, but none of it ever seems to really make a difference. All that really makes a difference is whether or not their servers deliver blocks and how much of the money that they get (theoretically) from skimming the top of the rewards pool gets reinvested in vote buying directly or indirectly vote buying through delegation.

And I don't even care about that part. I leave that for other people to care about.

When it comes to bad outcomes, what I really want to see is the people who are responsible for them to feel some pain because they have negatively impacted the people who believe in the product. In the corporate world, someone would get sacked. In the crypto world, we've seen on multiple occasions if you screw people over and make a run with their money, people compete all the more to give you more money, so it may be that I'm simply poorly conditioned for the development environment I find myself in.

Regardless, the right way for the maintainers of the blockchain (such as they are) to respond to a situation in which a technological deployment which they were responsible for testing for several weeks which ended up effectively making onboarding impossible for the biggest creator of accounts should be abject horror and not a sort of plodding complacency. I don't want to read a carefully phrased and disconnected technological excuse followed by an actual mischaracterization of how the platform actually works. I want to read how the company/responsible parties are actively horrified by the fact they can't bring people on board. I want them to register that, from an investor's point of view, this is one of the worst possible outcomes for what is effectively a mechanical patch to the database. And I don't want to read them telling the people who should be most emotionally invested in the platform that unless they vote on the safest possible content with the most restricted possible topics, they can expect their votes to be meaningless at both the macro and the micro level.

I would like somebody to realize that these are big deals and that they are being dealt with in exactly the opposite of the right way.

As I said, I don't expect that to be the case. I don't expect a representative of Steemit or one of the top 20 Witnesses to come out and say, "This is really fucked up and we are terribly sorry. We blew this. There is no way in a reasonable universe this should have happened. Here are the people who are responsible for this happening. Here is what we are going to do to make sure this never happens again. And by the way, everything you do on the platform matters, please keep engaging with the content that you enjoy and want to see more of and ultimately want to see rewarded."

I will never see that happen. I will never hear that happened. That will never happen. The Steem blockchain has had three years for someone to step up and do that. To step up and say that. They have chosen not to at every opportunity.

This is a terrible shame and the users deserve better, but they won't get it.

·
·
·
·
·

which they [witnesses] have never denied [approving a hard fork]

This is not true. There have been at least two releases which were fully pushed out by the developers and blocked by the witnesses. There are other situations where developers have discussed the proposed implementation with witnesses prior to release and it was clear that some course correction needed to be made. This then avoided the situation of getting all the way to a final release which is then blocked (ultimately a waste of time and resources).

end up repeatedly failing to maintain the basic operation of that platform

Again you keep going back to "basic operation" when in fact basic operation isn't good enough. If all we wanted were that, we'd need almost no updates (occasionally there is a bug or security issue found but that has been very rare and usually addressed without too much disruption, and it would happen even less if we weren't pushing forward with enhancements). With no major updates or forks, basic operation would be damn close to 100% uptime and might well actually be that for years on end. But I personally don't think that is good enough. We need to push forward with improvements and that means taking some risks.

As far as taking responsibility, I felt that the post-mortem posts from Steemit after the HF20 screwups were pretty reasonable and that progress is indeed being made to improve the process over time. There wasn't even a public testnet at all until fairly recently, now there is. That's not everything, but it is something.

what I really want to see is the people who are responsible for them to feel some pain

Believe me, everyone involved feels plenty of pain from their investment being down 99%, and for some this is truly life-wrecking (whether or not anyone should get in that situation is another discussion, but nevertheless some absolutely are). If pain were enough, everything would be fixed by now but unfortunately it is not enough.

·
·
·
·
·
·

This is not true. There have been at least two releases which were fully pushed out by the developers and blocked by the witnesses. There are other situations where developers have discussed the proposed implementation with witnesses prior to release and it was clear that some course correction needed to be made. This then avoided the situation of getting all the way to a final release which is then blocked (ultimately a waste of time and resources).

Then considering what actually made its way through, I don't even want to think about how broken those proposed releases must've been. When you referred to the "circumstances" of this release earlier, I knew it had to be bad but this isn't actually making me feel better about this release. It makes me feel worse.

A hard fork that actively kept and continues to keep new accounts from being created is a dire situation. The previous hard fork which kept people from being able to post or vote for multiple days was a dire situation. Both of those ran the gauntlet of you guys before they landed in front of us.

Did the releases you guys blocked actively come to people's houses and stab them in the eye? I have to wonder how bad those were.

Again you keep going back to "basic operation" when in fact basic operation isn't good enough.

I am absolutely in agreement when you say that basic operation isn't good enough.

Where we part ways is that I recognize that being able to have the major creator of accounts on this social media network unable to create accounts is an absolute failure of basic operation. We aren't talking about an experimental feature or change in payout rate not matching predicted numbers. We aren't talking about an expansion of functionality making updates to the blockchain a couple of minutes slower. We are talking about no new users for multiple days. We are talking about one of the big ways which keeps SP moving around the ecosystem (sometimes using methods I don't entirely agree with, but recognize are now inherent to the architecture) completely failing for the biggest investors.

We aren't talking about passing up on expanding the capabilities of the platform, we're talking about an essential failure of the architecture.

I accept that the new linear reward mechanics are crap, but they are crap-as-designed. They absolutely dis-incentivize the one thing that the blockchain needs above all which is more content creation and heavily incentivizes chasing the Dragon of figuring out what the big bots are going to be voting for and getting their slightly first. That's an entirely different issue.

We are talking about a core and basic functionality of the blockchain just not working.

We are talking about a core and basic functionality of the blockchain for literally the biggest stakeholder in the database not tested by anybody on the test net – which includes that biggest stakeholder who you would think would have a responsibility for testing one of their most frequent and most important blockchain interactions.

Didn't happen.

As far as taking responsibility, I felt that the post-mortem posts from Steemit after the HF20 screwups were pretty reasonable and that progress is indeed being made to improve the process over time. There wasn't even a public testnet at all until fairly recently, now there is. That's not everything, but it is something.

This is very much a case of "and yet you gave us this crap."

I am literally objecting to what we are being told in this specific post, how we are being told it, and what is being defended. The fact that there is a long history of this sort of behavior is almost beside the point.

I don't actually feel like the postmortem posts from Steemit after the HF20 screw ups were pretty reasonable. In part because the immediate fallout was entirely predictable and unhealthy for the blockchain, and yet… That there is now a public testnet is great, except that what we have here is a massive failure of the public testnet actually catch a significant problem.

This is exactly what the thing was designed to catch! This is the whole point! This is one of the time and effort was put into it!

Are you actually telling me that Steemit never tested a large stakeholder like themselves delegating SP in the process of account creation, one of the most important (and to a certain degree only public) functions they hold? And none of the Witnesses said, "hey, maybe we should test one of the most important functions that happens on this social media blockchain?"

"That's not everything, but it is something." What it is is a massive failure at what it was supposed to do. I feel like someone should be horrified by that. Publicly. They should probably be angry and upset.

Surprisingly, I'm not angry and upset – I'm just frustrated. I hate to see a shitty job. And yet, here I am again.

Believe me, everyone involved feels plenty of pain from their investment being down 99%, and for some this is truly life-wrecking (whether or not anyone should get in that situation is another discussion, but nevertheless some absolutely are). If pain were enough, everything would be fixed by now but unfortunately it is not enough.

Yeah, I'm not even going to try to get into that set of issues. I'm sure there are people far more qualified than me to talk about cryptocurrencies as fiduciary instruments and how reasonable they are as investment sinks. (It says everything about me that despite the multiple, loud, aggressive public exhortations, I was smart enough never to put a dime of my own money into the Steem blockchain and was only mildly reluctant to cash out as I earned to buy things that I wanted, meaning that I actually didn't lose 99% of my value – I actually got to use it. What I still sit on is purely because I don't need it right now. I feel terrible for the people who actually really need to that value and watched it bleed away over the course of couple years for reasons which were entirely predictable and which they didn't have to buy into.)

Pain is not enough, but pain is a good start. Nothing quite teaches like pain. Suffering is an educator.

But I'm not talking about financial suffering because, really, all value on the Steem blockchain is fictional. The things that have driven down the value of STEEM are a lot broader than this most recent hard fork, even though it is exemplary of the kind of thinking that got us here. What we need to see is some responsibility and some awareness that that responsibility to the public has been failed. What we need to see is that someone cares about that failure of responsibility to the public and not a regular infusion of doubletalk, evasion, avoidance, and straight up disinformation.

I appreciate your position. You are being the loyal company man and I get it. I avoid that position myself (and luckily my employers have always been wise enough to recognize they should never put me in that position) but I've seen it enough times. You're doing the best you can in a bad situation.

What I need to hear is that you know it's a bad situation, that you know why it's a bad situation, and you recognize how bad the situation really is. Because as much as I appreciate the interaction, I really don't get the feeling that anybody acknowledges how bad this really is.

The introduction of RC followed by nobody being able to do anything on the blockchain because nobody had enough RC was pretty damned hideous. This is not quite that bad, but it's a situation where a social media platform literally can't add new users. Technically, multiple social media platforms if we accept that digital applications define multiple platforms which use the same backend database. Delegation, which is one of the backbones that drives the mobility of SP on the Steem blockchain for good or ill, is broken.

Now, if I were still dabbling with data mining the blockchain and trying to discover patterns which reveal hidden bot networks, this would be a gold mine. With delegation from major players no longer playing a role in moving SP, an interested party could really work on figuring out those chains of delegation and how they interact and how big an impact bot farms not being able to use delegation from big players actually is. But I'm not because I had my curiosity beat out of me.

This is a bad situation that never should have happened. It's exactly what the public testnet was designed to avoid. It's exactly what Steemit themselves should have been responsible for testing. It's exactly what the Witnesses should have been on the lookout as entities responsible for the long-term stability and growth of the blockchain (which is what a lot of them keep telling us is one of the reasons we should be voting for them, even if it's rationally not what they're really responsible for).

It just should have never happened and the possibility shouldn't have been there for this to happen.

You agree with that, right?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You are being the loyal company man

Um, no, I'm not part of any company having to do with Steem or Steemit. I'm speaking only for myself. If you don't agree with my views, that's perfectly okay, but that's what they are, my own views.

It just should have never happened and the possibility shouldn't have been there for this to happen.

You agree with that, right?

In an ideal world, yes. We don't live in an ideal world.

which includes that biggest stakeholder who you would think would have a responsibility for testing one of their most frequent and most important blockchain interactions

What do you suppose we should do about that? We have no authority over them. We (witnesses) can block all releases until they shape up, until and unless they decide to vote witnesses out (in contradiction to their previous representations that they wouldn't, but they can still do it) and vote in their own puppets. Or we can engage with them and encourage process improvements. So far we have pursued the latter and made some progress with it.

I believe I already responded to most of your comments in my previous reply. This seems to be getting repetitive so I'll decline to rehash it but if you have any new, and well-focused comments or questions I'll be happy to address them.

·
·
·
·

"... vote against all of the current witnesses..."

Why? There are over 1 million accounts on Steem, and less than 10000 remain active. All votes for witnesses cast by abandoned accounts will remain effective votes FOREVER since witness votes never expire. What possible impact can current accounts have on witnesses unless possessing substantial stake?

Please, you're killing me. I can only laugh so hard before rupturing my spleen.

·
·
·
·
·

Why are there over 2 billion Facebook accounts, etc, as of 2019, and yet less than a billion are active? There could be many reasons why. But regardless, it's human nature. It's normal.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Comparing retention rates between Fakebook and Steem illustrates the difference between normal and abysmal performance. Your figures would provide Fakebook an overall retention rate of 50%. To keep math simple I'm going to estimate Steem retention, and the contribution of socks, which are multiple accounts of one user. We know that some highly staked users have thousands of accounts, and this dramatically impacts estimates of user retention on Steem.

Fakebook user retention is 50% overall, and over 1M accounts on Steem with ~10k active users leaves 1% overall user retention on Steem. That's not normal. It's abysmal. It's 50 times worse on Steem which claims users receive nominal financial incentive for participation than on Fakebook, which makes no such claim.

Given the motivation financial incentive provides, it's highly revelatory of just how poor Steem management is at supporting society. Is it possible that paying people discourages them from participation? No! Not at all. What is factually provable is that Steem is paying the wrong people in such a way as to drive everyone else away.

There's no other explanation for the monstrous dichotomy in user retention, and why I have repeatedly and often pointed out the fundamental difference between profiteering and investment. Steem is so codified as to reward profiteering, and society is based on investment and building civilization - the opposite of profiteering and the destruction of civilization.

It's completely bass ackwards from what it should be doing to support society.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

A very large number of those million+ Steem accounts never corresponded with users. It was people who mined or registered large numbers of accounts because they could (either due to the nature of mining, or because the registration portal was not able to block all abuses).

There is much lower retention than 50%, I'm pretty sure, but it isn't 1% (10k/1m).

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

How make fake accounts are there on Facebook? I run into thousands of fake accounts each year, at least, during the 2010's. Some years ago, I ran across hundreds of Star Wars accounts. I was befriending dozens of Luke Skywalker accounts, not pages and not groups and not events. There are so many fake accounts. I have made dozens of accounts myself on Facebook. Younger people are fleeing Facebook these past few years. Millions and millions of people have been leaving Facebook. Some go to Gab and some go to Minds. Some come to Facebook and Bitchute, etc, etc. So many are not using any social networking. So many people go on Facebook because they have to and not because they want to. There have been millions of people who were forced onto Facebook. I was living in Vietnam for 5 years, 2012-2017, and I saw first hand how Facebook was used in Vietnam for example.

·
·
·
·
·

With a very few exceptions (I can think of one anonymous early adopter with a pretty big account that suddenly disappeared and no one ever heard from; we suspect he or she may have died) the abandoned accounts have almost no stake and don't matter. Apart from those odd cases like sudden death people aren't in the habit of abandoning large holdings. If leaving most will at least power down, and certainly many did.

A lot of those million accounts never voted for witnesses either. New users who signed up looked around for a bit and then left.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Given that you are replying to low stake accounts, the dismissal of the stake wielded by zombies is facile.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I'm dismissing inactive accounts from being so much of the witness voting pool so as to overwhelm active users' votes, which it certainly isn't. Active users add value regardless of stake, so there is value in engagement. I don't personally pay attention to how much stake someone may have when engaging, and often it isn't possible to tell anyway (due to multiple accounts).

·
·
·
·

"Rejecting all forks or rejecting all forks with are not rigorously tested and audited (nearly equivalent in practice at this juncture)..."

I LOL'ed.

Thanks!

·
·

"This is indeed a signal of consensus that the content is value-adding because the one thing that all stakeholders have in common is wanting their stake to increase in value."

No it isn't. I am a stakeholder, and note that I don't care if my stake increases in value. I also note that disregarding rhetoric enables me to observe that HF21 appears deliberately designed to decrease the value of Steem, and thus to reduce the value of all stakes. It is designed to increase the concentration of Steem in the wallets that hold the most of it, and this directly decreases the value of it.

"...there are plenty of rewards paid out with NO whale votes."

Not anymore.

Previously, whales extracted ~90% of rewards through the magic of stake weighting. That remaining ~10% was not 'plenty'. Under the current rules that will drop below ~5%. It is difficult to conceive of a mechanism that will more discourage adoption and retention of Steem social media. However, I am sure better minds than mine are hard at work doing so.

·
·
·

I am a stakeholder, and note that I don't care if my stake increases in value

Extreme edge cases don't matter. The vast majority (particularly when stake weighted) does care, and even if it weren't a majority, it is still the main point of commonality which means it is where votes will most align and the where most rewards will be directed.

·
·
·
·

Don't disregard the rest of my comment. Despite the fact that edge cases are perhaps the most important to consider, as they reveal potential paradigm shifts, the fact that almost all rewards inure to whales and HF21 more than halves those escaping them is highly relevant.

·
·
·
·
·

The rest of your comment is old news, and we don't even disagree that a lot of the reward payouts have been captured by large stakeholders. We disagree on what HF21 is attempting to do (IMO it is specifically intended to moderate this, in its overall systemic effect). What it does or not will play out over the next several months.

·

Originally, it seems that the Steem Upvoting System was always about a reverse auction or some kind of betting game. Of course, there may be better systems out there. But Steem was always about a system that is all about gambling, betting, as far as I can tell. I am ok with bots.

·

"...it will never change."

I disagree. It will shortly vanish.

Thanks!

·
·

See, oddly enough, that is one thing I don't expect. And I'll tell you why.

The lightly distributed nature of the Steem blockchain means that all it takes is a handful of true believers to keep running the servers and basic functionality can continue for a truly disturbing amount of time. There are more involved zombie projects that have been running since the early 90s with only a handful of users and the occasional nudge.

The Steem blockchain could easily become one of those things. Eventually, it probably will. Unless the developers and users get extremely lucky and someone hits on a killer app that gets the right amount of traction, that is the future inevitability.

In my mind, that's worse than a crash and burn scenario. That's just a long, slow trudge into the sunset, with continuous cheerleaders popping up in the cryptocultist community. That's a terrible way to go.

That's what we're looking at.

·
·
·

I note that the data on the blockchain includes evidence of criminal and tortuous acts, and thus expect the blockchain to no longer be funded due to liability of ninjaminers motivated to eliminate that data. I think that's what HF21 was all about. We'll soon see.

·
·
·
·

While I have no doubt that there is evidence of all kinds of fun crimes hanging out in the Steem blockchain, I don't think it's likely that Steemit Inc. or other major stakeholders expected HF 21 to be of any use in dealing with that fact. Mainly because to get rid of the evidence would be to get rid of the blockchain and there are way too many copies of it floating around for that to be very effective.

Radical transparency is one of the few things that this place has going for it and I don't really see anything in HF 21 that was intended to actually change the historical data that way.

Now, if one of the new developments as a way to essentially "checkpoint" the blockchain, consolidate all the old blocks into some new kind of "checkpoint" blocks which stand as computational cipher and capitalizations and allow the chain of blocks to be rolled back to that point and still checksum, then I think you might have a strong argument that some folks in the blockchain were trying to get rid of information they didn't want seen. As it stands, since that is not a technical possibility, suggesting it is a bit of a stretch.

It would make for an amusing conspiracy theory but not really a failure of the kind that we normally see playing out here.

·
·
·
·
·

Defunding those effecting the blockchain is one step that can be taken to prevent that evidence from being used. It isn't the only step necessary to do so. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

What is high-quality content???
Please define.

·
·

Content, written by 'famous' users. ;-)

·

Content which contributes to growing Steem and increasing its value.

What specifically that means is going to be subjective so stakeholders can express their own opinions through voting. The system is supposed to find a consensus on the matter.

·
·

Thinking of "quality content" as "proof of valuable contribution" and having this as part of our culture might have kept us in the top 20 and we might not have needed an SPS to get things done.

https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/my-version-of-steem-is-not-content-based-it-is-contribution-based

·
·
·

Glad to see another that acknowledges the issue with culture. I would go as far to say it was the main issue plaguing the platform.

But I'm glad to be seeing lots of good flags on trending. It's like a battle.

Oh btw, potentially viral meme on my page if you want to check it out. (Approaching 200 views on YT with 11 likes last I checked. Not my usual by a longshot) Political parody vid. Check it out if that's your thing.

Btw I agree 100% on the post.

·
·
·

Agree and I've linked to that post in some of the discussion which got us to where we are now. I'm actually surprised to see that I didn't vote on it, but I may not have seen it when it was active.

·
·

Supposed is a keyword here.

My opinion: we, as a society, are so not ready yet.

·
·
·

Time to level up. No more waiting. #newsteem.

If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards.

I’m sorry, but I do not understand… how is “high quality” determined? By votes? How many votes does mean “high quality”?

·

Content which contributes to growing Steem and increasing its value.

What specifically that means is going to be subjective so stakeholders can express their own opinions through voting. The system is supposed to find a consensus on the matter.

·
·

This definition eats it own tail. Steem's proposed value to the external universe where money comes from is that it should support the production of content that people want to consume. If "high quality content" is "content which contributes to Steem" then there's no external value and no reason for anyone outside to want any.

Which is where we are today.

·
·
·

Hah, you manage to invalidate your own argument in the very same paragraph.

Steem's proposed value to the external universe where money comes from is that it should support the production of content that people want to consume. If "high quality content" is "content which contributes to Steem" then there's no external value and no reason for anyone outside to want any.

If you believe that producing content that people want to consume is the best way to attract money then by all means vote for it. Personally, I believe that some such content does so, but not all, and I believe that some contributions bring value apart from (what is traditionally known as) producing content. Where our votes align, the rewards paid will be the greatest, where they don't, rewards will be smaller.

·
·
·
·

What boggles my mind is everyone trying to fit what "quality content" is into one short definition.

How about dot dot dot we go case by case.

Id wager that by going case by case more often then not we would have concensus about what is quality, does it provide value, etc.

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·
·
·

Case by case is the reality, no matter what people say.

·
·
·
·
·

Glad you're still here. Keep crashing the gates of this party.

i was bored with HF21 anyway, been there done that

·

HF21 was soooo last week yesterday

·
·

honestly best answers evah!

Onwards to #NewSquaredSteem

·
·

ha, hope you didnt make any HF21 t shirts

·
·
·

Nah I luckily canceled that order in time.. I am second guessing this tattoo though 😬

·
·
·
·

You could get one of those wrap around your arm jobs? newsteemoldsteemnewsteemoldsteemnewsteemoldsteem

·
·
·
·
·

Ohhh good idea!!! 😛

·
·

hahahaha, I want my oatmeal back

LOL. Did you even think about fuzz-testing this fork? The "do a few things on the testnet" testing method is so 1988. Just in case you don't know, we have tools now.

You also continue to operate under the misapprehension that because something is highly-voted-on it is in some way valuable, which is completely opposite to the facts on the ground on Steem.

I don't know what universe you guys live in.

·

I mean it's essentially what steempeak does. If our users find an issue we fix it. Not sure what the issue is?
Steempeak has it easy we don't have to have consensus we just update but i mean this is software... find an error and fix it.

·
·

Bugs in a front end are easily fixed on demand as you say. The situation is a lot different when dealing with a (supposed to be) immutable database. If there are bugs that corrupt the state, recovering from that can be very painful, or in extreme cases not even possible.

I agree that the development process is a bit light on testing. Ideally every operation would have a comprehensive set of unit tests across the full range of allowable inputs and states, as well as random (fuzz) tests, but this is actually very difficult to achieve in practice. Hopefully the developers will make steps in that direction though.

·
·
·

Yes and this bug is not painful nor extreme.

·
·
·
·

That does appear to be the case but when bugs aren't caught in testing it indicates a risk of other more painful or extreme bugs also getting through.

·
·

As much as I love Steempeak and obviously the good work of your hands and that of your team, I beg to differ. A front end and the what is essentially the foundation that front end resides cannot compare.

I feel most witnesses no longer resonate with other steemians struggling to make something on the chain. I am still waiting to see if this hard fork actually does anything to improve manual curation. I doubt it. Heavily! 😬😬

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·
·

This hardfork is just a matter of fixing a delegation bug. I'm thinking you're talking about last hardfork?

·
·
·
·

Yes. It was in response to this.

You also continue to operate under the misapprehension that because something is highly-voted-on it is in some way valuable, which is completely opposite to the facts on the ground on Steem.

Bugs will always be discovered even months into the latest hardfork so that doesn't concern me as much.

I was just addressing something that I have been overly concerned with since HF21 was announced. But now that it is here let us see what it brings.

·

I'm voting on this because I suspect everyone else will...

nah, it's actually a quality comment. Guess I could be throwing my vote away..

If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards.

... In many cases you can replace "high-quality" with 'high-popularity'.

I will keep upvoting 'unpopular', not so well known authors, as well as comments, if I think they deserve it, and just don't care about the new "who-gets-the-most-curation-reward-because-he votes-the-fastest-on-popular-stuff-game". :)

I hope some other users with enough SP will do the same: spread their votes on as many different users as possible instead of accumulating them.

·

Yay! Thanks for doing that @jaki01. We need more people like you here.

·

We all wanna be popular, too. You go girl. Just kidding.

NewNewSteem!

I hope it goes smoothly.. (please don't say quality content) It triggers everyone. :)

·

Updating your slot machine!

·
·

Yeah! Thank you... I need to make another post about that.

·

I was just squaring the steem.. but #newnewsteem has that new car smell...

·

Quality comment.

We do not expect the user experience on steemit.com to be impacted by this hardfork

So HF 23 can be expected a few days from now?

So you're saying you never tested steemit's ability to delegate to new accounts during testing?

Isn't that the most common delegation in steem blockchain history?

@steemitblog,
Okay lets' deal with our brain of proof :D Seems bidbot got a bad time though :D
$trdo

Cheers~

·

Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @steemitblog!
@steemitblog got 6 TRDO & @theguruasia got 4 TRDO!

"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"

To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

The goal of Proof-of-Brain is to reward people who create high-quality content as determined by the crowd. Votes should only deliver rewards if the content is deemed valuable by other people. If someone votes on something that is not high-quality, the creator of the content should not receive any rewards. If someone casts the same vote on something that is high-quality, the creator of that content should receive rewards. The reward should not be determined by the vote, but by the quality of the thing being voted on.

I don't even know what I wanna say. But best of luck with the fixes. What fun!

Flagged for disagreement regarding rewards. I think you should be paying out for this, rather than making nothing.

Bye Steemkillers. It was fun while it lasted.

Just make sure you have enough coffee :)

·

Good to the last drop.

On #NewSteem it matters what you vote on. That is Proof-of-Brain working.

Not really. If I vote on something and think it's good.. and the crowd doesn't agree, I am now throwing my vote away.

You have in essence created a system where I will vote only on things that already have votes, regardless of quality. Theoretically anyway..

If no one has voted on it, then there's no incentive to be the first. Well done for creating a hive mind instead of rewarding the individual choice of a steemian. That's not quite a proof of brain so much as a proof of hivemind.

·

there's no incentive to be the first

This is what curation rewards, which are boosted in HF21, are for. The first to vote gets the largest share of rewards.

·
·

True.. but why you downvoted the comment by @tts in this post? People like me like their service.

·
·
·

Then upvote it, he can do as he wants with his stake just like you can.

·
·
·
·

Upvoted. But you see, I used my 100% voting power to resurrect it, still it is hidden. @smooth is a whale with over 300k SPs. Bilateral talks are always wise!

·
·
·
·
·

Until recently nearly all of my SP was delegated away and my votes were only worth a few thousand SP. I routinely downvoted tts that way too. I'm continuing to do it with undelegated SP because I think its rep is too high but I will likely pull back on vote power at some point.

·
·
·

I saw something posted a while back about a bunch of accounts owned by the same person upvoting that user and funneling funds out of the ecosystem. I have spent no time investigating.. but after that post starting seeing downvotes on @tts. I throw this out there cause it might be influencing people's choices.

I have no strong opinion either way.

·
·

Although what they say above.. one vote will mean nothing if it's not followed up.. it's not so much curation but crowdsourced actions.

·
·
·

Sure crowdsourcing a reasonable term for it.

·

Yes if you vote on something that no one else in the community votes on, then sure it could maybe not go above dust threshold and technically “not count”. But it’s important to remember that proof of brain implies the mind of the crowd. So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all.

Now as someone who curates low rewarded content often, I don’t look at what will get big votes and place my vote accordingly. I vote on what I think adds value, and many times it’s not been found by the crowd yet.. so then my goal is to make it be seen. This way, I’m not the only vote and the author is rewarded.

Essentially this means the community needs to work together, which is a given in a social environment. Lack of tools for content discovery has always made this hard. I know this will be improved in the upcoming communities but until then we can pull together with curation.

You may consider joining the @c-squared curation group - which is open sourcing curation through the community. Then when you find a post you can bring it in and it will be curated by the account (as well as many who look there for posts to vote).

This is a way we can work together to ensure we aren’t the only vote on a good post. Consider it 🙂

https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw

·
·

Discord. the real 'back-end' of steem. 😂

Good points though.

·
·
·

I know ... sigh but one day we will not have to go to discord - that’s the dream! 😜

·
·

"So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all."

It's the only proof of brain applicable. The crowd does not have a brain. Only individuals do.

Insofar as they do, that is.

Necessitating that votes only count if they are backed by sufficient stake utterly destroys proof of brain. It is in fact proof of wallet, and a large factor in the decline of Steem heretofore, and that which is ensuing presently.

·
·
·

I said nothing about sufficient stake, I said one vote on one post doesn’t really show “consensus” of a shared pool, then I gave an option for how we can work together to make our votes count for more on the content we want to support.

·
·
·
·

"So one vote isn’t really proof of brain at all."

That is what you said, and I disagreed, pointing out that crowds don't have brains, anymore than institutions have rights. Individual people do have rights, brains, and comprise society.

Aiming at society's brain you will miss, because society doesn't have a brain. Proof of brain is limited to individuals. This underlying principle is why consensus isn't ubiquitous, why society is diverse, and why we aren't all going to vote one way.

The important thing about our votes is that they are unique, and derived from our personal values. That is why bots degrade society when allowed to vote. They are the opposite of proof of brain. They are proof of no brain. Proof of wallet.

That has no place in society, and that's what Steem social media is.

·
·
·
·
·

Let me say this again in a way that maybe won’t be turned into some sort of physiological look at society and individuals brain power..

Of course a crowd doesn’t have one brain, it has many. This system was designed to be “crowdsourced” proof of brain, therefore one person saying “this adds value” no longer can be the deciding factor, and might I add never happens here.. so what I was saying is that we need to work together, as a crowd (made up of unique individuals with their own brains) to help ensure our votes “count”.

Of course not everyone will agree on one post and we don’t want them too, but that’s not really the point here.. you’re worried about one vote not counting so here’s the solution I have been giving - make sure your one vote isn’t the only one there by taking it to c-squared curation group.. which is open community sourced curation.

As far as the rest, I think this all stems from poor wording in this Steemit Inc. post, and I don’t really feel the need to explain things on their behalf.

The truth is that every social media platform is crowd sourced and so is Steem.. so we can just accept that and work to ensure the good stuff is seen or we can just complain constantly.. you choose, I’ve already made my decision.

·
·
·
·
·
·

'Join the herd. Look at this nice corral!'

The vast majority of Steem was created by ninjaminers, and most of the little created by inflation has been captured by the socks of the ninjaminers thereafter, meaning that Steem was never crowdsourced at all, and if HF21 remains the status quo, it never will be.

Unless you consider ninjaminers the crowd.

We disagree on certain fundamentals, and I am prepared to accept we won't agree. I expect three things to happen as a result of HF21: Steem price will plunge. Market cap will plunge. User retention will plunge. If I'm wrong, those things won't happen. You'll have been proved right.

If they happen, you will have been proved wrong - but it will be too late to do anything about it, because everyone that cares will be gone and unlikely in the extreme to come back.

I have come here to post and engage because my voice is singular, and I reckon I struggle not with the wisdom of the crowd, but the stupidity. You're encouraging people to sublimate themselves into the crowd, and that is simply unacceptable when the crowd is plunging over the cliff.

"...just accept that and work to ensure the good stuff is seen or we can just complain constantly..."

My way or the highway, eh? Yeah, no. That's not how society works.

It's how society breaks.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Keep twisting those words. I said come together in a manual curation group to help good authors be rewarded, only you could twist that into something bad.

It seems many here only want to complain and do nothing, it’s a free world so please continue. It’s been a couple days though... seems a bit early for the pitchforks.

I didn’t like or support the majority of these changes but will do my best to help them make a positive impact for the community.

If that doesn’t work we can all leave, as we as individuals have the right to do so... even you.

·
·

That's all fine in theory, however, if the 'crowd' follows the leader, then the leader decides what is 'good' content and all the rest of the good content not found or voted on by the leader is ignored. By having mindless curation trails, it discourages the individual from discovering content THEY think is valuable content.

I understand that there is no perfect solution and that we do need to group together in order to make progress, but I've personally witnessed certain posters getting a whole lot more attention from curation trails than other posters and that is not a good sign.

·
·
·

Then please go check out the one I’m talking about, as it’s not a trail and no one “leader” decides what’s Voted. It’s open to all and everyone is a curator... it’s crowd sourcing manual curation in the hopes of having an alternative to the very issues you brought up, and it’s why I am suggesting it.

·
·
·
·

C-squared has no blog... there is nothing there to look at.

·
·
·
·
·

Curation is done in an open discord server - https://discord.gg/eAcJQXw

Post voted with account are resteemed on @c-squared. Due to the high volume of those resteems our blogging is done on the @c-cubed account. Sorry I should have clarified that in my comment, I had in another but I understand that is confusing.

Hopefully that helps, let me know if you have questions.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Copied from the blog:

Please follow the @c-cubed curation trail at SteemAuto to support this effort.

I believe this is a voting trail.

As for Discord... does that belong to Steem? Is Steem a social media platform or simply a promotional tool for other platforms? This is one of the reasons Steem is doing so poorly... it keeps sending people away instead of holding onto them. People should be discussing their vote choices ON the c-cubed or c-squared blog... not on any other platform! Why would you not keep all comments on the Steem blockchain? More comments = higher engagement = bigger community = better for Steem.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Yes, there is a trail there for those who don’t manually curate.. and there are over 500 curators and many channels of curation for those that do .. choices are key there.

Discord is a chat app, as there is no way currently to do these things on a the Steem chain, when there is we will. As I agree we should rely on a third party app... but alas, it is what it is for now 🤷‍♀️

Curation in the volume we do would not be doable on a “comment in a post”, it just wouldn’t. We use the chain by resteeming the posts, making curation compilations, commenting on the posts and oh yes - rewarding people for engaging on the authors posts as we believe engagement is good for the chain too.

Thanks for the interest, going to get back to curating now...

Alright, I get that we disagree, but now you're flat out lying. If I post something that a thousand minnows think is high quality, it will have a lower $ value than if one whale likes it. Don't lie to us or yourself that this system is going to fix the problem with rewarding only things worth rewarding. That's not how "quality" works, and it's not even really the intention of the change, except in a very specific case (abuse). Most good works will earn less regardless of relative value, and most whale and whale-friend posts will earn more regardless of value.

This is not a good post. Please have a person with empathy write your explanations, not someone who is revealing their irritation that the peasants didn't understand the rewards curve change.

Posted using Partiko Android

Thanks for the information....
Here's a little bit from me.....
I help new accounts, over half of them have decided to leave now. I also watched their post payouts go down. The ones that are left as of now, don't really have plans of sticking around. 2 of them have asked me to remove my delegations because they do not plan on sticking it out. I also know a few larger account holder that are powering down to leave as well. Which REALLY got me to thinking. So after a little thought i have decided I know what to do....
I AM POWERING DOWN AS WELL.
There is more money to be made now....doing just about ANYTHING OTHER then Steemit. Maybe someday this place will be worth stopping in to hang out. But for now, i have all my friends I made here available on discord so i don't see a need to deal with the insanity and unstableness of a self destructive, abused richman's wellfare system.
Have a great day you guys and i hope you all get it figured out.
🤗

·

People should be encouraged to be here as a way to save their content from censorship as opposed to only making money. My focus is on archiving the content I make. That's my priority. Also, I am playing a long game. So, people can lose patience if they are in a too big of a hurry. It can take ten years for some investments to pay off.

·
·

You are 100 percent right. That was a rant and i should have done better. My main reason to be here is archiving my story for my children. Thank you for the reality check my dear brother.

A “vote” is not “worth” anything

So many users will get triggered for this lol.

Posted using Partiko Android

·

The truth of your statement is revealed by the votes on it. That is the curse of Proof of Wallet.

I feel like cringing but thanks for the update. Do whatever is necessary to fix this.

Posted using Partiko Android

Oh Lordy Lordy. Here we go again!

An immediate hard fork to fix one issue that was identified. Sorry but totally stupid idea.

Because this is preventing Steemit from creating new Steem accounts,

Wait at least one week. So no one can be on boarded during that week, big deal, it's not like that has ever been a priority. Take a look back and see how knee jerk reactions helped HF20. Down for a few days, problems left and right. Make a post that people can REPORT issues they are having right now with HF21, before jumping right into HF22 for a one item fix. There are other issues, and no where to report them simply. Yeah yeah tell me all about go to Discord, or go to Steem chat, or go to our face book page or our twitter page!!! Sorry we have nowhere for you to actually report the problems encountered on our Steem Block Chain, (kind of stupid really), so use some other social media outlet to let us know what the issue is.

How about a simple *Hey Folks we would like to know if you have experienced any glitchs in our steem world matrix, just leave us a comment so we can check it out. Then you might have gotten a response like this issue I am having:

Hey great job guys, but I am experiencing this issue. I use chrome for my browser, I used to be able to right click open in a new window links from my feed. I can still do that however I can not vote or comment so far about 75 % of the time in the new window. It does work, vote and comment wise, some times but not always,

I am sure there are other people looking for an easy method to let you know something is wrong, pin a post to the top of the feeds and give them the opportunity to post problems they are having. Then talk to the witnesses about an emergency HF22.

·

One important thing to note is that currently exchanges are down to update to the HF21 code. Giving them a new code to implement now is much more efficient than waiting for them to get back up and then telling them they need to do another HF.. which would most likely occur if Steemit Inc. “waited a week”. Just something to consider... I don’t think anyone is excited for another fork, but we have to push forward.

·
·

If it takes more than a couple of hours for an exchange to do an update to a software program, then it is not a very efficient system I guess, I do not know how long it takes to do their updates. I do not know a lot about crypto currencies, I know a lot of the other block chains have a lot more HF's than Steem. The first year for steem saw 19 HF. I have been on steemit for just over two years HF20 was the first I went through, was anyone concerned about the number of HF's in that first year?

On Friday what happens if Busy.org finds a bug that effect them? Will their request for a HF23 be passed over? On Tuesday when the first payouts from HF21 start to come in and if things go bonkers during that time frame is it going to be because of HF21 or HF22? If you wanted to delegate SP to some one right now you could do it. Are we expecting the witness to just blanket approve this HF22 with out testing it or even looking at it? It took over two months for the witnesses to look over HF21.

I think they need to continue to evaluate the fork, and watch for other problems before just blindly, (that is the way it seems to me), throwing up another hard fork. I can delegate steem and if I can delegate then almost any one else should be able to. So to me this seems strictly a Steemit Issue.

·

Just like your comment, alot of the grievances in the comments contends to the front end of Steemit.com or other interfaces. These frankly can be reported anywhere as long as you identify and reach out to someone responsible. It doesnt have anything to do with witnesses nodes or consensus.

The issue that steemitblog raises on the OP comes from the consensus rules themselves, the back end. Which will require a hard fork to fix. I support that a the hard fork comes asap since this is a patch and not an update.

Posted using Partiko Android

·
·

s long as you identify and reach out to someone responsible.

Kind of the issue isn't it finding some one that will accept being the responsible person/group. Steemitblog is steemit. An official voice of steemit. The fact that steemit can not delegate Steem is a steemit issue. If I want to delegate some steem I can do it. So steemit can not and they want another immediate Hard Fork. If no one could delegate steem then yes it might be an issue that needed an immediate fix.
Here is from their post above:

Because this is preventing Steemit from creating new Steem accounts,

It is preventing steemit, it's not preventing me from creating tokens or going to one of the other account creation places. just steemit. In the past any time any one brought up steem block chain and steemit int he same comment it was always that they are not the same. The witnesses and steemit and all can say the witnesses do not work for steemit, but that is not how it is, is it. The witnesses are supposed to protect the chain, not steemit. After one day they found one bug, and want a hard fork because that one bug effects them, not you nor me or anyone else. They need to wait to see what other bugs are in the system. It takes a week for payouts and changes to be fully done. If they do another hard fork right away, next Tuesday are the possible screwed up anythings going to be because of HF21 or HF22? There is no harm in waiting a week to ensure, that there are no more bugs, no more hidden problems that just have not crept up yet.

It is far to early to do another HF. Let it HF21 run at least a couple of days if they do not want to wait a week. Which brings up the question of why they really want it now? Is there some other problem they are trying to fix? Is there already other bugs they found? Did something not work they way they really wanted it to? I get very leery of we fixed it, then OOPS we need to fix it again action.

·

There are other issues, and no where to report them simply.

Knock yourself out - https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues

·
·

You see there we go again a place outside of steemit to report issue about steemit to steemit people. I have actually been to github, I looked and decided I did not want to spend days or a week or more to figure it out. Let alone sign up to another site that is controlled by Microsoft. If I could leave a note there with out signing up I likely still would not. Microsoft controls github, they own it and can block or ban at whim. It has already happened to a few people.

So once again, lets not make it easy on people to tell us where a problem is, then we won't need to spend precious time and resources trying to fix it.

Thanks for trying to point out a place, but it is still outside of steemit and the steem block chain. A decentralized system to reach the world.

Microsoft-Owned GitHub Blocks Devs in US Sanctioned Countries
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com

There are more than just that one story.

That's shit though. If I decide to pay $1 a month on patreon to someone because I like their content is worth paying $1 for, that dollar would go to that person, even if everyone else doesn't like their content and I'm literally that person's only patron.

If I vote on something, it's because I like it, or think it stimulates discussion or something of that nature, and it should be the same as if I pledged to them on patreon - it should go to that creator. I have reasonably low sp (but that could change) so my vote might not benefit the content I vote on just because of that, but I am not okay with my vote not rewarding the person I voted for because other people don't see the value in what I upvoted. Under a system where my vote might not support the content I want to support, I'd rather not vote on anything at all.

·

Just give up dear friend....
They're not listening.
😁😁

·

It is noteworthy that many do not grasp that flags are in fact canceling the VP of voters, rather than taking the SP of creators.

Now we have 25% more flags to fly, and soon we'll have 99% less content to vote on. Steem will no longer have value derived from a market for it when it is all concentrated in the accounts that ninjamined it (and their socks). Plan accordingly.

·

Tipping and voting with a shared inflation pool are very different. Tipu currently allows you to send tips to people and I hope that we have more UI imbedded ways to do so in the future, but the comparison you are attempting doesn’t make much sense.

·
·

Maybe it's not completely comparable, but that doesn't matter. Regardless of the ins and outs of how upvoting works, if I upvote something, my upvote shouldn't be worth nothing to the content I upvote just because other people don't agree. Whether it's an upvote, a donation, a tip, cryptocurrency or fiat money, popularity shouldn't dictate what my actions reward.

Popularity should play a role to a degree, which it already did in the form of things with more upvotes (or higher power upvotes - I've definitely had posts with less upvotes be worth more than ones with heaps of them due to SP) getting more rewards, and all platforms are like that to a degree, because YT for example is the same if the content isn't demonetised (more views = more ads that pay you).

However, the part of this update to Steem that makes your upvote useless if not enough other people upvote, is based on false logic. It mentions quality in its reasoning which means it assumes popular = quality.

Logan Paul, reality TV, and people posting stuff saying certain disorders / disabilities / health issues that do exist don't exist or shitcanning various science-backed (or if not scientically backed, at least harmless - ie Miracle Mineral Solution etc should be criticised) treatment options for health issues are all proof that popularity doesn't equal quality. All of these things are popular with certain groups and I would not say any of this is quality. The last two can be downright harmful and add to stigma surrounding the disorder / disability / health issue and it's various treatment options. But other people out there obviously do think it is quality enough to watch it, read it or believe it. These things are relatively popular.

But some things that are popular are actually good quality. And those things deserve to be rewarded for being quality. They are popular because they are good quality, but often also because they got found or came into the market at the right time etc.

However, the fact that some popular things are quality and some aren't, means that Steem is wrong in equating popularity with quality. Also, unless Steem Power plays zero role in the value of posts from now on, this focus on popularity won't work anyway because a post with less upvotes can still be rewarded more than a post with more upvotes, simply due to the power of the person upvoting. That translates to more popularity with powerful people, rather than more popularity in general.

Clearly, there are some major logic flaws in the approach they are presenting, due to quality and popularity not having a consistent relationship (this lack of a consistent relationship is also one of multiple reasons why liking or disliking things because they are popular - being a sheep or a hipster depending on if it is liking or disliking - as opposed to just liking what you like and not taking into account popularity is idiotic) and due to Steem Power not being moot and making only the number of upvotes matter.

Popularity pretty much always has to play some kind of role and it did in Steem in the past via more upvotes tending to mean more rewards (but again it depends because of Steem Power) and it is the same on other platforms too, but not rewarding less popular things at all even when people signalled "yes this is quality and I want to reward it" via an upvote is also wrong. This disincentivises rewarding content you truly believe in and like if you think it might not be what the community will like. Only rewarding the more popular stuff also will likely just create an echo chamber or circle jerk of less original content just reinforcing the same points of view or showing the same things that people seem to like on here. It's the same as people following trends or making types of content that just "seem to work" on YouTube because it gets more views and while combining a trend within your normal content if possible isn't too bad (ie on YouTube Scott Manley did a "bottle flip" video with a rocket in Kerbal Space Program which was a bit of fun), people following trends and choosing types of content to make based on what is popular instead of stuff they are passionate about and can do well is harmful to creative integrity and good quality content and harmful to the platform it is part of (note: people making popular content or following trends may also do it because they think it looks fun or they like it and that's not harmful to quality etc - doing it because it is the popular thing is).

Some people may keep their creative integrity and keep their content their own without changing it to appeal to a larger audience to get the little bits they were getting before this from dedicated fans on here and this is a good thing compared to them changing for the wrong reasons, but now they are more likely to change or just simply leave the platform (a decent chunk of small creators seem to be doing the latter).

The main value Steem offers to small creators - the fact that small creators are treated better here and rewarded better here and feel more like they matter and aren't a mere spec but are part of the whole community than they are on other platforms - has been very heavily diluted by this change and it wouldn't surprise me if many leave and don't come back because the main value offered to them is gone and this also signals an attitude shift towards small creators too because now popularity (and power because SP still is playing a role) indicates if you can be rewarded at all as opposed to just the amount you tend to get rewarded, which suggests an attitude that unpopular things aren't worth rewarding at all, even if the unpopular thing attracts a small but passionate fanbase who upvotes them. That fanbase should be able to reward the content they are a fan of, even if the content isn't popular. This change does display a negative attitude to small creators on here and that's destroying one of Steem's major benefits.

Regardless of any of this though, the fact is I am not okay with an upvote I make not supporting the content I want it to support. Yes, under this system, it can be a nice signal to them, much like a like on other platforms and previously at times a single upvote would still only really be that due to a single upvote not being enough to earn anything, but the bar to make upvotes support people is too high now. I am not okay with it being ignored just because other people don't like or maybe don't see the same content and think it should be rewarded. While the mechanism might be different, I'd equally not be okay with patreon deciding not to reward a creator with my pledge as I am not okay with my upvote not helping someone get rewarded on their post. I don't care if they are different. I am equally not okay with either of those things happening because I'm not okay with my attempts at rewarding people to be made moot due to the popularity of the thing I'm rewarding, regardless of if it is from a rewards pool or my own direct money.

So thats's why I haven't seen my 2.2 mil SP delegation yet...

yeah it's true, I noticed that the amount of an steemians upvote is not the same in the earning's. Someone upvoted my post with 0.040 and the other one is 0.011 but the amount shown was only 0.030. I don't understand why it's shown like this?

·
·
·

Will check it out.. always like some pretty graphics

I'm still smokin a J from hfork21 so all cool, do your job and let's have some fun!

Without forks we are nothing.

- Descartes

Let's rock'n'roll. No rest.

Thank you Steemit, Inc. team and witnesses.

Congratulations @steemitblog! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You received more than 60000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 65000 upvotes.
Your post was the most commented on one day

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!

@steemitblog Hello sir there is problem in reward distribution my curation reward is very very low my upvote value is 17 cent when i upvoted top trending posts i receive only 0.20 steem for curating a 17 cent upvote please check the problem

The Steem FAQ is outdated.
It says that the split of rewards is 75%, 15%, 10%.
That's not correct post HF 21. It is 65%, 15%, 10%, 10%.
The 10% SPS is only paid out if proposals reach the required acceptance by stakeholders stake weighted voting, so it's variable. This should be included in the FAQ.

Also you write :
"SMTs are planned to be launched in 2018!" -.- This has not been discovered in months.

This sounds complicated, but I like it!

The last point about New Steem concerning a Proof of Brain sounds like the original vision of Old Steem which I thought was already active. I thought that your upvote reward increases as the amount and the weight of those amounts of future upvotes from others increases after you in like a reverse auctioning system. I guess you are saying that the difference is the specific amount of money that might be show up in display at the time you click on upvote as that may not reflect whatever you may get at payout when you are rewarded 7 days after the upvote. Now, if that's true, and if this is a better system for making that work in a betting system, I think that might be better then.

It all still does not work after HF22 there are more bugs.

I like to see an overview with all these exceptions why payouts no longer take place. People are really confused about is and I do not have the answers.

So far it does not matter on what you vote on.
Where is the list that shows what good content is so we all know what to vote on and what to downvote?

Thank you in advance 💕

Posted using Partiko Android

Value/Quality is subjective though. Not everyone is going to like the same content, it shouldn't be up to other people what I deem worthy of rewards.

This actually looks even more exploitable by curation trails than before. No need to consume the content in question, just let a bot handle it all. So status quo remains with the new hardfork it seems. We'll see how things go I suppose.