You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self Voting
Which position is 100% self-consistent? Let's take several iterations:
Iteration #1
- Person A - Your stake is your stake. You earned it. But there are limits.
- Person B - Your stake is your stake. You earned it. Use it any way you want.
Iteration #2
- Person A - You're doing something I disagree with and I'm going to stop you.
- Person B - You're doing something I disagree with, but it's your stake.
Iteration #3
- Person A - Stop stopping me from keeping you in-check.
- Person B - Looks like you're trying to stop me, but it's your decision.
I believe you are justified in using your stake to oppose self-voting. But I also think it fails the self-consistency test.
You forgot iteration #4
Person A is also basically justifying the position to oppose this change based on claims that the Rewards Pool does not belong to somebody. This is clearly incorrect, because every holder of Steem is paying this interest rate, at a rate of 9.3% or so per year, through the dilution of their assets.
Person B is also, along with many others who they have been interacting with, to consciously not press the button, just because it is there. They are consistently reporting that their conscience and self respect are improved. In stark contrast to Person A, who seems to be reacting to this habit of self-voting, as though the campaign to disable it on the blockchain is something that is being forced upon them.
The self-consistency test stands, I'm afraid. Especially because you have also not considered this as a flaw in the system, that can easily be fixed, and we are doing plenty of work analysing. I would argue that in fact, from a standpoint of a psychological and sociological analysis of the behaviours, as they relate to cognate phenomena outside of the blockchain, demonstrate that your resistance is proof of decadence and corruption, and related to childhood issues caused by being unjustly treated by trusted adult caregivers.
You will find that as you learn more about my position, that I have not neglected to think this through, in fact, possibly to the contrary, and that I have many verifiable, and corroborated well established facts that can be cited, if you like, from psycholoogy, sociology, economics and philosophy.
Wow.
"This is clearly incorrect, because every holder of Steem is paying this interest rate, at a rate of 9.3% or so per year, through the dilution of their assets."
Quote from your answer... If we are all paying our share of the interest, can't we use the stake we are paying for as we want? Why do you get to determine who I vote for with the stake you just said I pay for with my dilution?
Flagged because there is no way that two paragraphs, one being mine, and one, your fallacious argument, deserve a dollar, when I can barely get that on a post I spent two hours laying out nicely, cleaning every typo I could find.
Kurt just comes along and 'swoop' a dollar. If I can identify what clearly is a circle jerk, and that clearly is, I am obliged to treat it the same way as a self vote. No matter how good it is. That was rubbish. Shame on you for playing the dirty game of vote4vote, or circle jerking, whichever it is.
It's fine. Not worried about it. Use your stake however you like. I even voted for it.
To answer this question needs more than speculation. There is a reason why I have got a peg on my nose and I am deploying the fastest single node I know of to build behemoth database query engine for doing precisely the analysis that will give us a nice little graph showing exactly how much the majority, versus the outliers, plus exactly who that is...
You no better answer the question than I do, by your own standard.
I am uncertain why this analytical work has not been done, considering the amount of words that none other than @dan has spent discussing the topic, in relation to reward calculation formulae, and the question of how to ensure that the distribution approaches this equality, while accounting for community consensus about what is quality and what is not, since obviously the whole purpose of having a forum is null and void if you just pay out 9.3%, or whatever the momentary rate is per unit of time.