A Proposed Code Change To The Self Voting System On WhaleShares ~ By TheBugIQ

4 days ago

A Proposed Code Change To The Self Voting System On WhaleShares ~ By TheBugIQ

So, I have been navigating these WhaleShares waters for about two months now and I have been navigating Steemit since January of 2018. I’m not sure I would call myself a seasoned sailor yet, but I have a few nautical miles on me by now.

sunset-2624988_1920.jpg

A lot has changed online since I began my blockchain journey. I’ve spent way more time at it than I intended to. I doubt I am alone in that. I made many more friends than I thought I would. Lost a few that I didn’t think I would. Made some family ties that I wasn’t expecting to.

The reality is that I see a legitimate opportunity on WhaleShares for many people to realize the dream of an offline life that is paid for by their online life.

Without serious and significant change, and a bold willingness to act. None of those dreams will be possible, in my opinion.

We need a new compass bearing on WhaleShares and we need it today.

sextant-1167013_1280.jpg

It’s time to clean up our house. We’re expecting company.

tea-party-1001654_1920.jpg

three-3075752_1920.jpg

Starting today I am beginning the process of suggesting that we work together as a community to build support for limited self voting.

Currently, there is nothing in place in the code to prevent anyone from self voting an unlimited number of times.

I am proposing the following:

  • Three 100% Self Votes Maximum per day (24 hour period)

By all means call them Shares if you like the idea of someone sharing with themselves

  • The Fourth Self vote in a 24 hour period will be 25% of your UpShare power
  • Subsequent Self Votes within the same 24 hour period will be 0% of your stake
  • Remove the automatic Self Vote option. A decision like that should never be automated
  • Remove the ability to Self Vote within the first 15 min to spread curation rewards to the smaller accounts

For too long blockchain communities have sat idle, throwing up their hands saying, ‘There’s technically no wrong doing here, the code allows it.’

Change the code. Change the code. Change the code. Change the code.

Can you hear this community chanting that? Demanding change from the grass roots up? I sure can.

Is this something the community wants to get behind?

crowd-1294991_1280.png

Is this something that will happen without conflict? I doubt that very much.

The mistake that many people have made on and off of WhaleShares, is that they think Whalers are sheep getting sucked into another make-believe version of Steemit. Maybe, just maybe, we are not the sheep people think we are.

Maybe, just maybe, most of us are, in fact, a group of battle hardened blockchain veterans who are tired of the same old same old. Maybe we really are the change that we want here on WhaleShares.

sword-790815.jpg

I have seen trending posts about Love and holding hands and singing Kumbaya together, while being sure to have no conflict, because we sure don’t want to be like those other people constantly fighting.

fire-79362_1920.jpg

That’s like being on a battleship in the middle of the ocean and the galley is on fire and no one wants to fight the fire. It’s fiiiiiine. You worry too much.

I don’t want to fight with anybody, but I won’t be silent when I think improvements that make sense are possible.

I more than believe in that possibility. Do you?

Bug

©Images CC0

Authors get paid when people like you share their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE WLS!
Sort Order:  trending

I think it would be much simpler to change voting rules period. Not everyone starts with friends or Whale tokens.

These effects would last for 48 hours and reset.

I'd like to see votes to the same person from any account reduced by 50% payout and at 50% more mana.

So 2 self-votes would cost 250% and reward 150% but also 2 votes from me to you would have the same rules. This would also apply to whale tokens.

A third vote would cost 50% more and pay 50% less.
So 400% mana cost for a 200% reward and it keeps adding 50% to the cost and removing 50% of the reward.

There are more voting issues than just self-votes. This would solve a lot of issues and would be fair to all involved as it would apply to every type of vote and voter.

·

Right on, keep the hits coming. I am all for decaying returns based on behaviour detrimental to the health of the ecosystem.

I think we are all on the right track and will be a matter of finding something that works. The serious scammers who bring no value to the platform except the right hand of fellowship inside their own pants will cry the loudest. As you can clearly see in the comments.

·
·

It would be interesting to see if more people would engage if they could only cast 4 votes to one person or themselves in 48 hours before rewards being reduced to 0 for a 5th vote. 48 hours would help a lot but it might honestly need to be longer to have the real desired effects. Most scammers would leave if it was 7 days as account creation is hard right now and right now is when the word spreads amongst the scammer groups of where to milk "free reward pools"

Side note true bloggers wear no pants!

Well hello @bah and welcome to another one of my posts. I know your style, I’ve seen it before. It’s boring. You troll and troll as hard as your little fingers will let you troll and then you switch into ‘hey I can be reasonable’ mode.

Frankly, you are a young man in conflict who loves conflict for conflict’s sake.

You’re born in what? 1986 or so? Makes you what? 32/33 years old about? From Fagarash in Romania right?

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 10.16.10 AM.png

You have been a young man in conflict with your very first Steemit post which, I remind you about and Can Be Seen Right Here

When you didn’t like how you got manhandled on my last post you decided to Run A Contest to reward people to troll me and comment spam me on my post that you Can See Right Here How’s that contest going by the way? You should consider offering all of your HairShare tokens for rewards. Same result I expect.

You love to argue and assert your rights loudly, and even argued with the WhaleCoin owner of the HairShare token @nepd when he took exception to you using his token to run a trolling contest. You can’t seem to accept ‘no’ for an answer at any cost. It might be worth considering a change in online social media tactics, based on my observations of your success to date.

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 10.26.49 AM.png

You like to wade in uninvited On Posts Like This and spew long replies that likely only you re-read over and over again sitting in your closet rocking back and forth muttering, fuck you Bug, fuck you Bug, I’m a honey badger!

Let’s be honest ok. After all, it’s just me and you here and no one but us can see this comment. I used a special algo just for you.

You’re more honey than badger.

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 10.22.19 AM.png

The reality is I don’t mind you that much at all. You’re a little misguided and trolly, but you did donate some ginger hair to @nepd’s HairShare init and I really liked that. And I have seriously loved gingers in my life and still do. I admit you have me on the fence. But maybe it’s not a total loss. If you would like to bury the hatchet, (and I don’t mean in your forehead), I mean the one in your mouth, then I’m game.

Finally, if you put even half the effort into your blogs that you put into decent comments and troll comments, you would be a lot more successful on WhaleShares.

If you want to enjoy the same level of success on WhaleShares that you have on Steemit, by all means, carry on doing what you are doing. I leave it to you fine sir.

Bug

·

I troll and troll and troll and troll and THEN I switch into "I can be reasonable mode" which would be different from my "trolling" exactly why, after all you've remarked on my intention before without bothering to ask me anything, called me a troll and various other names, or what you consider "manhandled" and still believe you're correct in any of it, right?

·

Btw, how was the contest at all designed to spam you? I asked you numerous questions and your silence only spoke of how much you care, so I don't expect you to answer to any of them, and none of my questions were put in ill will or intended to cause conflict.

·

Also, since when did people need an invitation to step up and say something when someone is being antagonistic like freedom was in that post? I'm curious why you think I needed an invitation. You also must be joking when you say I cannot accept no for an answer as if I had to ask HOW or WHY to use what I earned.

I didn't have grand expectations of people joining into making your slanderous post a hit, but it seems you have a problem with asking people on their thoughts on the situation and making that into a contest, or is that just me?

I'm actually very conflicted about the self-voting debate. On one hand, I feel like a jerk when I share my own posts (I've only done it twice, I think, on WLS).

On the other hand, I've got some hard-earned whale token that I can reward myself with. Even then I feel like a jerk when I use them for my own posts. And who would know from whence it came unless someone dove into the tokens' history?

Why is being transparent about rewarding one's own work bad but using whale token acceptable? Again, I'm conflicted.


Your proposal is definitely intriguing, but does it take us down a slippery slope? If we put limits on self votes, what's next? Limits on daily posts?

I actually like @bah's idea of self-voting costing 3x the mana just as a flag.

"If you want to spend 3x the voting power to upvote yourself then it shows everyone what you act as even and especially regardless if it costs more, which can be conviction or recklessness, but not greed or purely profit maximizing."

Which again begs the question: if it costs 3xs more mana to share one's own post, does that mean it's 3xs likely that people will create more accounts to circumvent that? It's getting slippery again. Where are my skis? ⛷

·

I understand your conflict @merej99 and I can agree with it on many levels.

I feel that a more comprehensive approach could be useful.

For example, if the community really wanted to do something of value to help the WhaleShares economy grow, then something like the following might be useful

  • One full power self vote per 24 hour period and then a 3X decaying self vote following that.
  • A code change to apply an escalating 3X decaying vote between accounts that vote exclusively in excess

Without some form of house keeping I can not feel confident inviting people here.

Would I LOVE to bring some of the pro musicians, writers and poets that I personally know here to WhaleShares? You bet your ass. Will I? Absolutely not. Not until this place is cleaned up a little and we are in an environment that is supportive and not abusive of the reward system.

I never invited people like Steve Piticco to Steemit because it simply could not be taken seriously.

People want to cry about libertarian rights. Are you kidding me? We all live within a framework of guidelines, rules and laws on every level of society. Even here on WhaleShares. Start a blog on incest for example and see how that goes?

We need better guidelines and code in my opinion. People cried freedom on Steemit and SteemCleaners was born. A massive organization funded by Steemit Inc to combat comment farming, plagiarism and more. I don't want a police state. I want the people to take ownership of what goes on in their house.

If people want an environment where abuse is free and easy, then I will definitely not endorse this platform to real world professionals that I interact with personally.

Food for thought I hope,
Bug

I think some kind of limiting of self-rewarding is a good idea. I'm glad you brought it up. For a sharing platform, it doesn't make sense to get rewarded for sharing your own stuff... because you already shared it when you published it. Some kind of limit built into the code will more strongly reinforce that this is a sharing social network, not a self-rewarding scheme.

Well proposed.

·

Limits are never good, it's trying to control people and what they do with their own stake, it doesn't make sense to limit people. It shows distrust in other humans. That is trying to make a central control system. Basically doing the same thing as countries are already doing. Surely if something too wild is being done that is another story. But in 99% of the cases it's always very minor and something that can be discussed. What people do with their own stake is their own business. "strongly reinforce" this is going down the same path as the old systems, the future is trusting and communicating with individuals. This is also completely going against fuzzy's original idea. He did not believe in controlling people but let people discuss stuff

·
·

You discuss things and then go right back to self-rewarding though. The code would not stop what you do but it should.

·
·
·

You mean you want to remove people's freedom to self-reward? That is censorship and trying to mind what others do with their stake and investment, it will never work, barbra streisand effect, I'm not doing anything too crazy, I'm just growing my stake, I have also made videos telling that anyone that wants help and do original videos they can let me know, I have reached out my hand to help others, removing freedom would prove that whaleshares has weak and low levels of trust. That they are busy focused on petty stuff instead of thriving in life

·
·
·
·

I'd settle for people flagging you. You can clearly grow your stake by cheating, by rewarding yourself, you can say fuck 25% for me and 75% for others and simply take 100%, but people are petty if they point out such greedy behavior, and not "thriving" correct?

·
·
·
·
·

There is no such thing as cheating here, The Blockchain is designed so you can use Stake to reward stuff. I do plenty of original content some days 5x original articles. I also do original video content. Yes some times I reward some comments, none of this is cheating. I have invested hard earned cash into this platform and I want to profit from that early risk that I took. I also have made clear that I'm open to support content creators that reach out to me.

And I have made videos talking about that. I also don't find greed to be a problem. I have the ultimate greed empower millions. That also means I have to empower myself a lot first. I do a combo both Empower + Self-Empower. Bill Gates took 10 dark years to empower himself. I look at things in the long term 10+ year perspective. I have no plans to be here short term. Thanks for your comment

·
·
·
·
·
·

The point of rewarding is to reward others as well as yourself. You know this is cheating, here and on steem and everywhere else curation rewards work as such. You won't say shit to the fact that you empower yourself by curation rewards, because the designed system isn't good enough for you. You try to claim that there isn't any cheating when you reward yourself but you won't explain or reason why 25% return isn't good enough for you. Bill gates stole and had massive connection, I'm glad that transparency and immutability of records will render collusion much harder to maintain and that laziness wins by making the collusion evident.

If you genuinely cared for the system you'd care as much for the present or more than the past future, and otherwise you're living with the head in the clouds and avoiding the "pettiness" of inviting behaviors that set the pace for a complete mockery of wise investment.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Not sure what your point is. I both have no issue with self reward + reward others, you have your view of seeing things, I have mine. I do both empowering others + empowering myself. And I hope others do the same. I don't find Tokens as a big deal. I don't find using your own Stake to reward something a big deal either. I look at relationships you build on the side as the main value. The Tokens --> Basic Level Needs, it's some numbers on a screen, no big deal

·
·

Thanks for responding to my comment. When I used the phrase "strongly reinforce", I meant it in the way of lending support. A structural metaphor, not to use force against someone.

I just don't see a logical reason or philosophical argument to include self-rewarding in the code of sharing platform. That is all.

Thanks for discussing. I hope to talk with you more about this and other ideas, too.

·
·
·

Thanks for response also,

Well the way I see it is: There are no short cuts to build an amazing social network, it takes real sacrifice and it needs to happen in an organic way, I don't think most people will do too much self rewarding when love and trust becomes big in a network. But that also takes lots of authenticity from humans.

Humans are natural givers when you create a nice environment. For example friend networks that I build up properly I just trust them and they do amazing things without me having to tell them to do it. Humans naturally flowers in an open free + loving environment. Self-reward only grows when suspicion grows and low trust grows. Self-rewarding we need self-empowerment in a world where we have bigger global issues coming.

We can print a billion more Tokens. Bigger global issues are coming as world population moving up to 10 billion humans. We need as many people on self-empower mode as possible. The more they empower themselves the more they have the capability to empower others in the future.

I know how the Intellect works so if it decides to want to control people's stake it can only go down to more control in the future. I think you just have to trust people in the new world. Because without trust and love we are all eventually going down in disaster on this planet.

·
·
·
·

I am totally with you on the Nature of human beings btw.

But whaleshares is not an isolated ecosystems, it is growing with inevitable ties to society and human history. steemit has illustrated this well

·
·
·
·
·

Steem is the biggest success story of all time,

But the thing is that it reveals the truth about a human, Steem has connected me with amazing life time selfless connections. I could care less about the brand and the network. I look at how it gives me access to high-level connections and gives me ability to send value to them in 3 seconds. The surface layer fluff is pretty lame. But the paradigm shift of humans becoming free is fascinating to see up-close.

Relationships that I can keep develop deeper on Discord. Steem is just a hook up tool, the platform itself and the Token is pretty boring. That can be copy-pasted again as it's just digital code. But the people it could attract that has deep Intelligence is the fascinating part.

Yeah as you write not an isolated system, and these platforms will show human history and society. As everyone now is involved in Money, Politics and Power in some way or the other. I do understand how that makes many uncomfortable, and some other thrive in that Game of Thrones landscape. Many times it shows lots of realness, that we have been sheltered away from for the last 50 years.

·
·
·
·
·
·

you value upvoting your own comments more than creating relationships

otherwise you would upvote others more than yourself

today you chose to spam upvote 9 comments on your other account @creativemind

you are very manipulative

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Thanks for a longer comment,

I value both, but I create relationships in private, in chats, that is how you can create deeper bonds with a human. A relationship is sacred, I don't think real deep bonds happens on a Blockchain comment section, it's mainly for entertainment in my opinion. Of course I value upvote my own comments, I'm for self-empowerment, I have nothing against that. It's 1 of the main core layers in the new world

I really don't think sending some Tokens creates deeper bonds with another human. Mainly relationship building happens on the side and then you send some Tokens here and there to people. That people look at some digital Tokens with dead seriousness I find very silly. People need to learn to relax a little. It's 1s and 0s on a screen. Here is the fact: 40 million wls Tokens will be shared out the next 2 years. Manually. Does anyone really think every Token will go to some noble I saved a cat article? I find that to not be living in reality.

How this Blockchain works is you have to comment something to be able to reward. If it was that you did not need to comment but could still get your share out then I would do that instead. If there was an auto tool to share out then I would do that also. Blaming the users for how the Blockchain works is very silly if you ask me. It's then a design flaw. And I said many times I have been open minded and reward anyone that comes to me. Not a single one come. I did a original 20mins video talking about it. Not a single one come. I did 5 original articles. Not a single 1 come. I do a few comments. The whole world panics. It's really ridiculous, people only see what they want to see. People are so fake that they only comment when something is "wrong", but they ignore good works.

Frame me however you want. But I only see people go after you once you do some minor self upvote. They have 0 listening skill or wanting to understand skill.

·
·

If there were truly no limits, I’d be able to create all the bitcoin I wanted with the push of a button because I wanted to. If that’s what you are fighting for I might be on-board ;-) But I don’t think whaleshares is the place for that

·
·
·

I find money a pretty boring tool after you felt the true Intelligence of this place ;-) If a person walks around in a mall just be attentive to every thing for 1-2 hours a person will realize what true Intelligence means, I think we will become 1 million times smarter eventually. Can print lots of Bitcoin clones then :-)

·
·

Why are limits never good? The whole art of self empowerment is based on findings ones limitations as much as discovering ones talents and inspiration.

Why doesn't it make sense to limit peoples? Does the bandwidth limit make no sense? Does the voting limit make no sense? Does the witness vote limit not make sense? Is it distrust of other people to want to put such limits? Is it a central control system? If "what people do with their own stake is their own business" doesn't that fly in the face of the very premise of stake, as the first reason shareholders hold stake is to ensure them control over the future of a company and wouldn't anything that devalues the future of that company be counter to other's interests and their own? Here by misusing your stake you invite others to do the same and directly devaluing the premise of sharing it devalues the adoption and retention rate as people see it as a scam and without integrity.

If fuzzy didn't believe in controlling people why did he make downvoting so costly, in turn attempting clearly to control people with limits?

·
·
·

I understand your point, but I don't agree that people empower themselves can de-value something, We are entering the age of abundance. The more people get empowered the more they will do more good. That is what I have seen in the world. The Tokens have 0 marginal cost to produce. It's basically free. Self-empowerment is not mis-use. It would be maybe selfish if I had no plans on empower others. But I have months of Crypto proof that I have been selfless. Even if I would use my Stake for myself it's still my stake. I can do what I want with it. That is the whole idea of Crypto. On Steem Blockchain. Where I auto-vote out my daily 20% to other creators.

Also in my case I clearly made videos talking about that I'm open to reward and support anyone that comes to me with WLS Tokens. That will say I have a selfless personality. So if I empower myself with WLS that has a net positive gain on the Blockchain. I have both brought in my social circle here + thousands of dollars of value. That never would be here if it wasn't for my words and recommendations. I also give out many 100% rewards when I see amazing content that I focus on to empower. Vlog content.

At the moment everyone here is overpaid. That will say people are doing well already. I don't like the idea of spoil people too much. If I see a post with a few 100 WLS I see no point in giving more. Spoiling people may have a bad effect. I also have skin in the game as I have done real authentic videos. It's not about people anymore or Tokens. The future systems are flat power structures. That will say no individual node can damage the system. This is what decentralised means. The only thing these new systems do is to give all the power to the individual.

Looking for authority at some other places completely miss the point. The individual can both empower themselves and run all alone if they want. Stake holders has also grown the value of this place by being investors. It's their stake. They can do what they want with it. People want their daily 20% and at the moment how the Blockchain works is you need to comment or do an article. This specific day I did 5x original articles as well. But people only panicked about a comment WLS upvote. Only seeing what they want to see.

This place need an easy auto share out WLS system. It's how the Blockchain is designed that is the fault. Expecting people to manually share out 40 million WLS is delusional.

·
·
·
·

You didn't answer my questions, any of them.

I don't know if that will be implemented but as someone who has had this self-vote conversation with you and many others I believe that there must be no option to self-vote.

Instead the amount of WLS we get after curation must be increased. Plain and simple.

This will eliminate the need to self-vote and we'll be getting good returns from our upshares. As of now most of us get peanuts in return for our upshares.

Whaleshares, I believe is the better version of Steemit. Much better which is focused on community building rather than building our own Stakes.

P.S: I have self-voted only once since I joined Whaleshares and I selfvoted on my first day here.

What I think we should made a self discipline to not upvote our own post andfrom this moment I am going to apply for myself first to not upvote any my own post.
Dear sir it will bring some fruitful results after your dialogue to the society.

Newish to the platform but this seems such a logical limit - incentives have to be balanced with the balance tipped towards engagement otherwise it will simply wither on the vine. Personally, I see no need for a personal upvote at-all but this measure will, of course, garner more support. Thanks for suggesting this.

I love that you’ve proposed this! It doesn’t really encourage too many people to open multiple accounts (only the worst among us will bother opening multiple accounts just to circumvent) but will help a big chunk of rewards flow better.

I think we should only have 1 single 100% vote for ourselves every day and that each vote afternoon that should lose 25%. I think it would also help if your original proposal would be applied not only to self votes but to other users as well to discourage circle jerking.

We need to speak up on keepin this platform community oriented. All of us here now will be able to do very well for ourselves without plotting and scheming and without even working excessively hard if we keep the ecosystem healthy through small adjustments like this

·

Your core idea the way I read it is: Human's can not be trusted so we need to control them, we need to control both their voting + how many accounts they have, both those are aspects that tries to dis-empower the individual and create a central authority above the individual and completely going against the whole decentralise movement, that will say it proves low level trust in a network. Also trying to micro-manage how people build up trust and relationships is also a way of trying to control how humans communicate.

·
·

I don’t believe humans can’t be trusted. But we have a lot of healing to do. There are still many people running on the dog eat dog program and you can’t expect them to care about empowering others. I don’t see anything disempowering or controlling about tweaking the algorithms to prevent gaming of the system. Self voting as an option encourages bad behavior. I don’t believe humans are bad by nature, but they are quite dynamic and need a healthy environment.

·
·
·

Thanks for a great comment response,

It was nice you said the thing with: Lots of healing to do,

People really are too hard and expecting regular people to go around and empower hundreds of others while most of us are not any people with large wealth. Now when we are for the first time connected (Internet still so new) there will be so much trauma that will come up. So people need lots of understanding and patience, for the healing phase. I agree with you if there is any massive gaming sure it needs to be looked at.

But is it really? I don't see it on whaleshares, I mainly see people with many Tokens that needs to be shared out fast and pressure from the system to do it all manual, and god forbid someone drops some self-votes as they don't wanna go around a few hours daily looking for posts. It's too much pressure on the users to be some utopian curator. I said it before auto-tool to simplify a users life is needed. I also see extremely judgemental leadership that is looking for blood, reminds me about a police state that needs criminals to keep their business running. It's living in duality.

Yes humans need a healthy environment, people need to be able to discuss things openly and not talk behind backs. Or use passive aggressive methods. Majority of people can be talked too and people will notice they are just regular humans trying to do their best.

I have also not seen any proof that self-voting encourage bad behaviour. Majority of people are not "maximisers", most of my friends barely use their stake. Self-voting can not encourage bad behaviour as people work in social groups so it's more rewarding for the full group if value get's shared around. But then trust and love also needs to be worked at for people to be willing to share. As you say a healthy community. Thanks for reply

·
·
·
·

You don't have enough time to curate so you cheat by not letting your vp go to waste as it should and instead upvote yourself. If you don't have enough time to interact are you still entitled to the rewards people get for interacting? Well you circumvent interacting and go straight for profit maximizing, even though tokens aren't a big deal for you, you cannot let others allocate those rewards and instead devalue their time by allocating rewards to yourself because to you upvoting others ten times a day is a chore compared to upvoting yourself and why should someone whose active not be devalued by someone who's not and who sees what they do as a chore, after all how you use your stake isn't a big deal, so why are you even bothering to vote at all considering that you ultimately don't care AND find it a chore?

Self-voting is not the problem, the problem is all the may accounts cashing out and killing the Whaleshares value. My 100% vote is about 50% less in value than it was 2 months ago. If you have no "Fan Club" its hard to increase value organically on your post. I always upvote my posts because I know how much work went into my photos where other people just click on by.

·

Only partially correct Robert. You will notice that your self vote here cost you in a big way. Not only did it cost you three times as much mana as upsharing someone else, it also only gave you 1/3 of your voting power. A price I assume you were willing to pay to have your comment seen.

Powering down is such a minuscule part of the equation at this time. There is enough douchebuggery on the platform to warrant an overhaul of the code as it pertains to self enrichment.

I have multiple accounts and I am willing to work my ass off to grow them organically with original content and ideas. I prefer that method, but if others don't and want to whack off in the corner by themselves night and day then they should receive rewards commiserate with their anti-social low quality behaviour. If they wish to call themselves investors that may be fair, seeing as they are only investing in themselves.

·
·

Hey Buy,
I am referring to posts, not comment upvotes.

·
·
·

Yes that is how I understood it. I was simply using the 3X penalty for self voted comments as being illustrative of the potential to apply it further.

·
·
·
·

All good brother, looking forward to hearing you sing. Next show i'd love to hear you sing some John Mayer - Free Falling version

I'd like some investigation being put into seeing if the system remembered the last 10 users you rewarded.. They all must be unique and different.

This way repeatedly rewarding yourself, or repeatedly rewarding your friends, can't happen until you've rewarded 9 other people first.

Someone might say "well, they'll just make 9 accounts then, and reward all of those too"

Fair enough, but it would drain:
a) Their mana
b) Their stacking ability
c) Complicate repeated rewarding to the same users

...because on the onset, if you look at repeated voting behavior, it's usually the same users, rewarding the same users, on a frequent basis, as much as mana allows.

·

I like the direction the comments are heading in for the most part. I see a lot of potential in something like 1 full self upvote per 24 hour period and then the same 3X cost in mana and VP. So after one full upvote, if your mana is worth 30wls, you will only generate a 10wls vote on your own post as well as the mana penalty.

I appreciate the larger discussion as well. Myself as well as others have favourites we vote for, as always I assume. I am certainly not against being nudged to get out and vote for others more if there is a reminder penalty attached to my unintended prickery.

·
·

I was waiting for somone to point that out...

yself as well as others have favourites we vote for, as always I assume.

If it's "less than 10 people" and it is always "that same 9 people" -- then yes... eventually this method would hit you.

But let's see what you did recently:

  • (1) thebugiq reward laureate
  • (2) thebugiq reward balkan-candles
  • (3) thebugiq reward nepd
  • thebugiq reward nepd
  • thebugiq reward nepd
  • (4) thebugiq reward erodedthoughts
  • (5) thebugiq reward welcome
  • (6) thebugiq reward derangedvisions
  • (7) thebugiq reward mandelsage
  • thebugiq reward mandelsage
  • (8) thebugiq reward crazybgadventure
  • (9) thebugiq reward poeticsnake
  • thebugiq reward poeticsnake
  • (10) thebugiq reward raghao

I think that works out really well... VERY well.... We should discuss this voice.

·
·
·

No no, this is terrific right here. Interpret the data for me now. Ask questions. Look back further if you want. The last 100 votes even. I tend to do my catch up votes in batches. Sometimes two or three to a person I share regularly.

I also do coffee comments that I try to do every morning to share people I don't know.

Is what you are seeing here evidence of douchebaggery? Or signs of a busy person building valuable content on WhaleShares who is a lazy voter at times?

·

But what stops them from 100%ing their 2nd account and 1%ing the other 9?

·
·

Well the algorithm should take that into account then, shouldn't it? :)
Good observation!

Why not make self-voting 3x as much as voting for other people and flagging either take away three times as many upvotes as a regular vote or use up only a third of the power instead of three times as much currently, and why not make this an environment where downvotes are used to curate as much as upvotes are used to pad peoples wallets, it only makes sense. Plus giving that if each selfvote costs 3x as much people will flock to create an alt account to vote through we ought to implement a way to have some transparent visuals of where the VP is directed, like a section of most recently voted on comments for each user in response to that. If you want to stop a behavior like excessive self voting, then I think you ought not to limit the frequency directly but indirectly. If you want to spend 3x the voting power to upvote yourself then it shows everyone what you act as even and especially regardless if it costs more, which can be conviction or recklessness, but not greed or purely profit maximizing. That seems much more sensible than putting a limit of three profit maximizing posts a day with a limit of no voting in the first x minutes.

I also don't think that many of these discussions are simply people throwing their hands in the air and saying "the code allows for it" to self voting problems. Many of the discussions even point out the perils of punishing self voting, the most obvious being that the behavior will only become harder to spot as people use alts. If they considered how their solution actually complicates the problem and confuses it with a symptom and how it could just as well backfire then maybe the impression that certain human behaviors such as profit maximizing/choosing the easy way can be approached with simple circumventable solutions would also be questioned. Maybe if they consider that something so pervasive must be challenged by serious means which certainly bring into question the "don't create a conflict" meme, maybe then I'll start chanting, but until then putting out suggestions that have been offered by others for years before you entered the scene and surely since you've been around and who's breath and scope is hardly considered for how easy it would be to circumvent doesn't amount to anything to jump behind and chant.

If you think there's a fire and other people are saying its fiiiiiine.

·

I have always thought of it in terms of a proximity and frequency type thing since voting is account agnostic we need to make it more aware, think more in terms of protecting the system. Now I am not sure which is easier I assume coding a vote limit in instead of that what would be really cool for me is if you have the decay of vote power allowed to be used based on the frequency that you vote for an account, same as vp replenishes over time this can also replenish over an extremely long time, how to track it I can't be sure so for that reason alone it might just be too complex to implement on the chain. Then I would make flagging cheaper as you say. That is still reliant on people and well we all know what people are. The system needs to protect itself and removing self-voting won't do any favours. If anything gets implemented it needs to "punish" everyone that covers the range of circle jerks and legit I really only like these peoples stuff all the way down to self-voting - any concentration of votes value will diminish and be spread, I would need to read up obviously on the economics. If it comes to choosing methods to address I guess it is "selfish behaviour" then I would go with flagging at reduced cost.

·

self upvoting of comments will be easy to spot with @phonewhale @creativemind since his english is poor

so at least he is able to be stopped

·

A couple of decent thoughts here @bah. I like the idea of the decaying vote in combination with my original idea. I think a combination of those has some merit.

·
·

There's no easy code changes that haven't been discussed to death with the conclusion being that you do this y, then this z is how it's circumvented. We already have a system that's supposed to be used for fighting abuse, what the problem is though, is not self voting but the stigma the community has on using a downvote as curation. You cannot draw neat little lines for people to always steer in between and expect that they won't cross them in your face or when nobody is looking if there isn't an immediate repercussion EXPECTED for doing so.

Thats why my suggestions are drastic compared to your suggestions even though they don't penalize harshly what they otherwise allow three free passes with.

I am not against removing self voting. In fact, have not in a month or so. My stake is small though. To temper those solely here for profit, we could institute a new mechanism. An INFLUENCER SCORE based on share distribution (voting) that directly relates to selected account activity and new / valuable content.

The compass score can also be routinely adjusted based on Whaleshares objective, i.e. captain yells !fire on Facebook! cause @merej99 has an SM initiative this month. Bonus Compass Likes could be awarded for FB trafficking.

I know, seems overly complex. Well to that I say:
"Get your head out of the InterWeb!"
Let me know if your stuck, cause we have blockchain now, and building a

WhaleCompass sidechain

would be fine getting all beat up, or even, rolling around in the mud.

You got me and if you need more, let's start here
https://threepiecesuitfootball.com/

Can't believe I missed this one

It made CNN a couple of years ago.
There is a video at the link
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/living/three-piece-suit-football-feat/index.html

If you going to tell me that centralized non-blockchain tech can better sustain such a charity, I'll show you a road to an English bridge made out of ice cream open across the Hudson only in August.

This is nice in theory but people will just open multiple accounts and then upvote the posts in the other account. I don't see a way around this.

this user https://whaleshares.io/@creativemind/comments
and https://whaleshares.io/@phonewhale

they are the same person as you can verify for yourself since they posted videos to both blogs

the phonewhale account upvotes all comments made by the other account

multiple accounts are used to abuse the rewards pool

you have a lot of influence, maybe you can help do something about this.

·

There is not something wrong with having more than 1 account, welcome to the free world (even witnesses have it and hey! They even know about it!)

Yes I upvote my own comments, I believe in freedom, I expect others to also empower themselves, or who else will? I don't find a problem with self-empower yourself.

I also have no issues with empower others as I do it daily here as well. As early investors takes the biggest risk. I'm not sure why you have a desire to spam this comment across the whole Blockchain either. I almost didn't use my stake for a few days, god forbid I upvote some comments, and instantly I get a bunch of spammed comments trying to attack me without writing to me first.

And you know you could just write a comment to me and discuss? But it's clear that you have some other agenda. Or else you could just talk to me. Instead of writing the same comment 20 times. You know I have made videos 20 mins long talking about that I empower others that reach out to me? This passive aggressive rudeness is getting annoying

·
·

You know what's a good way to self empower? Get off the couch and go do some work for pay. Pilfering rewards from a cryptocurrency is not honest work or everyone would support you doing it. For once I would love to actually get a straight answer from you as to why you think that you should get everything free.

You say you want to reward original video content creators but do you follow any of them to see when they post?

NO

That's the answer right there. You don't follow anybody. Not one single person

You say that you are just empowering yourself so that you can empower others.

BULLSHIT

If you were, you would outline a plan and start a transparent organization and do some actual work. You're too lazy to even manually vote for people and you sit and bitch about no autovoting tool.

BUILD THE FUCKING TOOL!

You don't know how to code?

LEARN IT. YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT TIME.

Hopefully, as you learn how to code, you realize that there are so many productive ways that you could apply your newfound skills and you put them to better use than just creating something to make you lazier.

I know that this falls on deaf ears but you are a detriment to this platform and if we just left you alone it would help nobody. Not even you.

That's right. It might buy you something but for the rest of your life it will eat you up inside that the path you chose was filled with laziness and greed. You will become more depressed than you are now and who knows where that spiral will take you?

Hopefully not the bottom.

·
·
·

"You say you want to reward original video content creators but do you follow any of them to see when they post?" I keep track of people in other ways, mainly in chats, follower feeds are just a distraction

"If you were, you would outline a plan and start a transparent organization and do some actual work. " I don't find that to be the most effective I work in my own ways that I find to be better in relation to my future vision

"You're too lazy to even manually vote for people" I'm realistic, most people do not want to manually vote, when they can have auto tools and save hours daily that they can use for other tasks. Repetitive tasks are a waste of human energy. Like Steemvoter for example

I have no interest to build an auto-vote tool. It would probably be attacked even. So I let others deal with that. I'm just saying what is needed to be done to make an effective share out system.

I know I have purity of intent and heart, I have no "dark plans", so I'm not sure what would eat me up? You have no clue what I do in life. There are more dimensions of life than what a person see. Again thanks for your comment, I see that you want well, just trust me I have no "weird agenda", thanks

·
·
·
·

If people don't have time to curate how can you honestly even expect them to listen to you, let alone form an actual interesting or simply honest response to your work and if you don't hold these expectations why are you even bothering making soooo many comments let alone blogging?

You make it seem that curation is a chore. To you, follower feeds are only a distraction. Why do I doubt that you haven't made a big deal in the past over how many followers you have, or that you don't appreciate each and every one of them, and you probably didn't bother sounding like a complete jackas and tellimg them what you think about follower feeds.

·
·
·
·
·

Curation is a chore. Especially in a world where seconds matter. If you invested in BTC early you would be a billionaire right now. That will say time matters now. We need systems that saves us time. Yes follower feeds are a distraction for me. I rather let my Intelligence guide me.

What someone ate for breakfast is not that interesting to me. I appreciate people but I don't have to flaunt with it, I go direct to someone's page when I wanna see what they done. I find the "follow" feature vulgar in many ways. I mainly appreciate people in private, most humans can flower on their own without someone having to micro-manage them at all times.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Nobody asked or expected to micromanage anyone and if you don't expect or intend for people to have enough time to read your stuff let alone comment or share their thoughts on it by saying that curation is a chore then why are you here?

Why is your intelligence obstructed by following people, a feature that I'm sure you appreciate from others?

Trying to draw parallels between hypothetical investments and people not having enough time to rate what they consume fails flat on it's face. First the hypothetical investments would have matured in a very long time and fat chance of exiting that position with "billions" and it doesn't say anything about why people all of a sudden don't have enough time to curate even, at all, and all the while you're repeating utter nonsense like "in a world where seconds matter". If you don't expect people to waste their precious seconds on rating what they consume why do you expect them to have enough time to read anything, do you realize the disparaging chasm between the average time it takes to rate something and the average time it takes to consume it?

Agree self voting should be limited because the minnows will not grow. The whales with high power will be capitalist in blockchain. That is bad when decentralized system is practicing capitalism.

really awesome post, I really like your post

it will only make people create multi accs buddy

·

Oh, well, please feel free to elaborate. Also feel free to use whole words. Also, feel free to explain how easy it will be to fund several accounts to the point where your own little private party will be profitable. Also, please feel free to explain how it will be profitable or even viable for multiple accounts to easily benefit from a decaying vote system similar to flags/upvote self comment. Also, feel free to read the comments for excellent input from others.