Joining in on the self voting on comments fray...
So I do think HF19 has been mostly a very positive thing. I've been noticing a trend and I know people like @schattenjaeger have noticed it as well as he wrote about it here.
I kind of noticed this off and on since the HF19 but I didn't really CLICK and say "wait a minute" until I'd had a very lengthy discussion with a pro-communist steemit community member on my decidedly anti-communist post. The typical capitalism and how it is all about consolidating wealth was trotted out several times as well as numerous other points we discussed. It was lengthy and there were numerous back and forth comments. Then I realized I saw the first comment of his up voted to like $3, and then the next comment a little less, and so forth. In the end I realized ALL of his comments had been up voted and the descending quantity seemed to be due to perhaps voting percentage declining due to use. I checked as I wondered which spectator was devoting so much of their voting power to up voting all of these comments. It turns out it was the anti-capitalist guy himself who had just been stressing the woes of capitalism and consolidating wealth. The word hypocrite went through my mind, and I did point out how he was actually doing the same type of activities he was saying were wrong. The conversation ended there. Now with the speed his votes were declining I am fairly certain my dialog was not the only place he was doing this.
That was my observation and I hadn't really decided to write anything about it as I was still thinking about it. I went on to read @schattenjaeger's post and I was also very interested @lukestokes's response. You see I know both of these guys tend to put quite a lot of thought into what they say.
I tend to be with @lukestokes that people should be able to use their power how they see fit, and it is up to the community to discourage such activities. That can even be seen as potentially using your flag to counter these self-comment voters as they are essentially intentionally draining the reward pool exclusively for themselves with little interest in fostering community growth. This a hard thing for me to do myself as I am very anti-flag except for use as a counter to spam, abuse, and plagiarism. Other people add the concept of if they believe the rewards are too high. I don't agree with that one as that leads to justification for those powerful enough to remove all rewards from topics and people they do not like or disagree with. It has happened before, and it still happens from time to time now. I've also seen powerful people down vote stuff to protect the reward pool, only to turn around and up vote their own comments before, which takes from the reward pool. Thus, I do not see reward pool as a valid reason for a flag.
Now what some of these self voting people here are doing is essentially spamming posts and writing next to nothing, or the same thing over and over again and up voting their own comments. This could constitute spam. There may be justification for ME to flag those. I am not telling any of the rest of you how to use your down votes and up votes. That is up to you. I am however, attempting to persuade you. That I will freely admit.
This is not necessarily why value of posts are declining. That is more likely due to the amount of new users and the currently decreasing value of steem on the market. There are ups and downs and this is normal. Ride them out. I believe @ats-david in @schattenjaeger's post explained it quite well and I'm going to include a screenshot of that comment here:
What he is stating there could have some huge ramifications on all of us. I do know that prior to HF19 people would keep their voting percentages relatively high, and not go voting crazy and be fine with going into the sub-50% range on their voting power.
With this current self-voting that doesn't seem to be the case. People seem content to vote their own stuff continually and drain their percentage. They are also draining the pool for their own benefit. Why? Because, they can.
Now I do see the value of being able to up vote your own comment for higher visibility, but I don't actually seeing that being very important for some time. The notification about replies helps with that.
I would advocate and EXPERIMENT where we temporarily removed the ability for people to up vote their own comments for awhile. See what happens. As with any code changes there are ways around this. All they really need to do is have a second, or third account and delegate power to it and have that up vote their comments instead. This is why most anti-flag, anti-down vote, and in this case anti-up vote own comments ultimately cannot solve the problem. There are generally work arounds to any software "solution" and sometimes they introduce new problems. So I do not expect it to stop this problem, but it does have the potential to slow it I believe.
Part of this problem comes from posts like Jerry Banfield's recent post We Double Our Steem Power Upvoting Ourselves Every 181 Days!.
First for most of us doubling our steem power in 181 days is NOT impressive. Most users don't have a lot of steem power. You can more than double your steem power just by using the platform regularly voting on people you like (other than yourself) and commenting, and posting. You should be able to increase your steem power by many magnitudes.
There is an exception to this. This is where that observation by Jerry becomes really concerning. If you already have a lot of steem power then doubling your steem power can take longer. So if the very powerful begin self voting themselves that would have some dire reward pool draining consequences.
For the rest of you. Doubling your steem power in 181 days by self voting is not impressive. You can likely do that far faster just by voting on people, commenting, and posting. For example: Let's say you have 100 steem power and you read his post. That means in 181 days you could have 200 steem power. On the flip side you could just post, comment, vote and you likely would double your power the NEXT DAY if you had a very successful post, or if not then at least within a week or two. It does depend on your activity, and how you interact with people. Yet doubling steem power is far easier for most people just by using the platform than it is by self voting all of your own stuff.
In addition, I fully expect some people will start combating this and that there will be some people that start flagging comments that are self voted. I really expect this will happen. It won't happen from me unless it is spam, plagiarism, or abuse. Abuse for me is not system abuse it is when a person is abusive to another person in an overtly obvious way. Example: Someone obviously trolling someone and not simply disagreeing.
Our little experiment here called steemit is quite beautiful. We are exploring a never before seen world. With this new world come new problems. New problems also require us to consider new solutions and not simply reach for things from the past. It is a challenge. This means it is not easy. We will have bumpy spots in our journey, but I do believe we can get through them as a community.
I almost always upvote my own comments. And I spend FAR more promoting steemit then I take out of the system. For instance, I just spent many thousands of dollars flying some people in to the recent Athens Steemit Meetup for the edification of everyone present.
You will soon see massive new initiatives by the Greek steemit community.
Example: https://steemit.com/contest/@onceuponatime/from-zero-to-hero-usd25-000-in-crypto-prizes
I am realizing that it would be irresponsible of you to do otherwise given the weighting scheme on Steemit. However, I also note that this fiduciary responsibility directly contradicts your ability to curate content, insofar as curation you undertake can be seen as decreasing your own responsibility to tend to your affairs.
I don't want to hijack this post, but would like your consideration of my thoughts I am posting on my page. I'd appreciate any comment you feel might help me to better consider the issues I present.
Wow, i which i could have at least one weekly post with that payout on your comment! lol
Btw you have done some give away posts and stuff, so you are ok with upvoting your self as i think you already proved not to be selfish...
Excellent food for thought.
Never thought about it this way.
I appreciate you doing all my thinking for me, @dwinblood. It really saves so much of my energy for more indolent pursuits.
-edit-
I don't like seeing my comment all the way down here. I'm going to upvote myself to the higher places.... :-)
Upvoted you to help keep it at the top because this post-HF19 Steemit needs a better sense of humor.
can you please explain me what is this HF 19 means on steemit
It means Hard Fork, which is a change in the Steem software(code) -> number 19
Dork. If you had a habit of up voting you own comments I'd be concerned, but I know you don't and you just did it to be cunning and comical. :)
I'm not sure how to approach this issue at the moment. It's still early a lot to think about. Most ideas I come up with are not difficult to circumvent.
I've solved this moral dilemma by upvoting your comment. We can rest easy now. Disaster is averted.
Honestly though, those people who are doing it exclusively, I find quite distasteful. They often don't upvote the post they are commenting on. It is alien to my way of thinking.
Yes. Exactly. It is very disturbing. I am thinking it may be worth resurrecting the two rewards pool idea. One for comments, one for posts. If comments for example were 20% of the total reward pool (maybe less even) and posts were 80% then at least there would be a stop gap/firewall to stop this illness from doing more than 20% damage.
Who'd stop them from spamming new posts and raping it that way, and what would that do with commenting being raped exclusively of posts, as it proposes.
I didn't say it would stop that. It would limit it though so it couldn't spill over to stealing and draining the rest of the pool for posts.
I think the split will work against that, first by making it more lucrative to spam posts instead of comments, and then by making comment rewards more susceptible to being drained, possibly discouraging engagement.
Spam posts we already have mechanisms in place to fight. That hasn't been an issue for a long time. Right now we have comment pool draining everything. I view it as a firewall or a stop gap. Everything you are talking about exists now. I don't see it hurting anything but it can limit the bleeding.
Short of that the community needs to withdraw all support, followers, votes, etc from the people that do it. Let them stand alone. If that doesn't work then we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
I think it's steem's mistake to make upvoting yourself even possible. So hard to resist sometimes, when it's so easy to do..
If they didn't allow it that is easy to get around. Just create another account and up vote your comments and posts from the other account.
Most things that seem like a solution are not actually as easy as we might think.
I don't see many simple solutions to these issues. Thus, why we discuss them brainstorm and hopefully us as a community will solve the problem. I don't think it will be easy though.
I confess that I played around with this a few days ago. I was giddy because I had as much as $16 per upvote of power, to myself or others. I lost myself for a couple of days and now I feel I've lost of bit of my honor and am working to get that back. I tried to rationalize that I'm accepting it all as 100% SP and not cashing out anyway so it may even be better than me upvoting someone who is cashing out weekly 100% of what they can. The truth is that it's not for me to say what others do with their rewards, but honor and respect need to be valued in this community for it to thrive. There probably is not a good way to mitigate self voting. As you mentioned someone could always just make duplicate accounts or delegate their own Steem Power to a friend who would upvote everything they did. In the end there will always be leaches but the goal is to discourage that. I do think it's acceptable to upvote people you think will be very good for the community long term even if the single 1 paragraph comment isn't worth $5 in real word terms. The goal is to promote and encourage valuable users as much as possible.
This is a really candid comment, thank you for it. I feel similarly. I would be really up for disabling self voting. The stated purpose of the network is to let the best stuff (as collectively decided by voting) to bubble up and be rewarded. Self voting does not work towards that, I think it's clear.
I think the question is, what's the lesser of the two evils? Self voting as it stands today or people creating multiple accounts and cluttering all of that to achieve the same goal? Cliques are also an issue. Let's say there's 3 people each with $10 per upvote. Person A can always upvote B and C. B can always upvote A and C, and C can always upvote A and B. They keep doing it because the others do. It doesn't have to be a meeting in a dark room for this to occur. These sorts of things happen naturally in the eco system because if you notice someone just upvoted the crap out of your post, you're fairly likely to return the favor (if they deserve it hopefully). The thing I hold dear is that I want each account I see to be an actual person.. just 1 person for 1 account. I don't want to have to wonder how many other accounts everyone has. That makes the whole project lose credibility in my eyes more than self upvoting. What do you think?
I don't think we need to decide which is the lesser, we should just deal with them as we can. Self voting can be entirely removed by disabling it on a blockchain level.
In the meantime as we campaign for this, we are making a bot to "tap people on the shoulder" about this issue with small flag for self votes on comments only (announcement here and here). For normal posts, we decided it wouldn't be fair to do that since it's the default steemit.com interface behavior, so I opened a change ticket for that, hopefully it's accepted.
As for multiple accounts, they can be useful, for bots or organizations, etc. I do not agree with 1 person 1 account. But for self voting, I don't know it's probably a serious issue. I think that because you have to split your stake between multiple accounts to do that it will never be as effective as using just one account, so not as bad as self voting. But to really solve it I don't know.
I do think that just because it is now known the first one should still be solved, we needn't choose between them.
Very good points and honestly I think I agree after reading your reply. I also just realized how awesome bots can be as you could literally as a community member make a bot that did that, right? Replied to self voters on comments? I wonder what the back lash would be lol. For instance, some people upvote themselves on comments just enough to be at the top of the list. Not 100%. Maybe just $0.10 worth.
For sure. We are not going to have the bot comment because you do you open the bot up to flagging itself. Just a little pinch of a flag instead to get the point across.
It wouldn't work, if A was not allowed to vote for A, A could vote for B, where B is another account. That would be an endeavor to filter out who's dumping all their Vests on what account, especially if there's a C, D, E, F, and G etc. that a person has.
The point is that if vests are split between accounts they are necessarily small by virtue of being split.
No, nothing is split among the accounts, they simply vote with their full power from one account, numerous other accounts, (that are theirs). I'm saying there is a very simple way to bypass that, more than likely forcing people to make new accounts and vote on them with their old one, or as it was said, delegate the power to a new account and vote on the old one. Either way it doesn't solve anything besides not allowing you to vote yourself, which will make it interesting when someone flags you.
It is impossible in a decentralized system to limit account creation, except as it is currently limited by time, and/or funding requirements on Steemit.
At least I can think of no mechanism that might do so. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, however, and suspect brighter eyes than mine carefully looking at the issue might well find better ways.
I think the conversation is about other limits instead of account creation, like limits for creating content on the blockchain, curating and possibly flagging as opposed to curating (upvote/downvote).
It's a very hard conversation because people intrinsically see limits as counter to freedom, especially when you start talking about pegging account to a metric which dictates what they can and can't do with on the blockchain.
I think it's necessary we look into that direction, limits over how much we can post and the frequency are already built in, we can build in other limits such as a metric that determines if you can create content, if you can curate content, and if you can flag content. That way policing the community doesn't resolve around the pseudo flagging/hidden we have, but actually revoking people's privileges to interact at the blockchain, just as in real life we have certain givens, so on the blockchain we can have certain givens, one being to create content, yet it can also be removed were that person to spam, or plagiarize, especially if it's exclusively what they do, so if the community decides that person A is not a responsible curator, they could have a say over a metric which has a value that determines if an account can or cannot curate.
That's fresh thinking on the matter, and exactly what I meant when I said someone else besides me might have ideas I couldn't come up with. I am aware that, in principle, the economic constraints on Steemit that cause new accounts to need to be delegated Steem in order to make posting possible, are mechanisms that might potentiate such limits as you discuss.
I'm not sure of details, but that may be the right way to handle spam and plagiarism. At least it's an avenue that has potential.
My question is...based on the way that curation rewards work, if you upvote your comments that were upvoted by other users right before the deadline to upvote, does it give them better curation rewards? Someone wrote a detailed post about the timing of votes and how it affects curation payouts earlier this week...wish I had the link to it...and it inferred that's the way it worked as far as upvoting your posts. At least then you'd be more a team player about upvoting comments, plus you could convert the voting power almost immediately into steem power when it paid out 12 hours later.
I really think moderation is key here, and that allocating your upvotes to other users wisely can be more lucrative than up-voting your own comments.
The white paper states Steemit has deliberately made the rewards for earliest votes highest, in order to reward those that discover content and curate it first more, to encourage curation work.
I fail to see that accounts randomly accessing Steemit per schedules that have nothing to do with when posts are made could possibly be advantaged by this. However, self votes, and coordinated cliques, certainly can.
Draw your own conclusions as to the true motivations behind this mechanism.
Edit: speelingh. Hookt ahn fonix rilly werkt fer mee!
I'm amazed I hadn't thought of that (upvoting someone's post right before a deadline for payout) and then receiving the rewards more quickly. I can't answer your question but I'm curious about that now too. Anyone who's been on Steemit for a few months or more has seen that it's much healthier than it was before (I don't just mean the price being higher). There are some "problems" that will never be solved because they're just impossible lol. I agree that I'll earn more by posting good content and contributing to discussions like this one than I would just upvoting myself all day. Plus, why would I want to shoot the project in the foot if I am an investor?
It's funny... I noticed the same thing from a communist here while in a discussion. I got 9 upvotes on one of my responses to them and and still had less value than their one vote got them. So I looked to see who was upvoting them and it was their self. I ended up doing it also on a couple of mine, justifying it saying to myself well this persons gonna do it while having this convo so I might as well too. Then I went and upvoted else where and realized I was using too much voting power on myself and couldn't upvote others the way I wanted to. I won't be doing that again.
Yep, when I first joined steemit back in July I watched some videos telling how to use steemit and Craig Grant I remember was recommending people up vote their own comments. At the time it made sense until I watched. I quickly came to the same conclusion you did. I don't up vote my own comments.
I have been really upset when people comment and upvote themselves (it's a positive comment on what I blogged
Yes, and this is a relatively new problem. I believe it is because now that HF19 was instituted even low power people votes actually do something. We do need to do something about it, we simply need to be smart about what we do and not make haste decisions.
LOL, it happen to me too... But also happens that the newbie minnow just comment some unrelated stuff and upvote himself with 0,02$ and never upvote my post, wtf?... I sometimes feel the need of flag him, but nah, i wont be loosing me energy there...
I wrote a more detailed post on my thoughts, if interested.
Self-Voting: Scammy Behavior, Rational ROI, or Something Else?
Hahah... and now I'm tempted to vote up my comment so others actually see it. ;-)
Nah... don't up vote your own. If you need more visibility ask me if it is my post. I typically vote 1% on comments. I can bump it some for visibility.
I was mostly joking, but thanks. :)
Great post and great discussion you have going here. I'm tempted to commie bash some more, but I'll just leave it be.
Hahaha... I just found it ironic that the guy that was talking about the evils of Capitalism and how it consolidated wealth was self-upvoting all of his comments at as high a level as he could. Well, not really ironic. I think that is considered hypocrisy.
I know. I've seen it quite often. It's almost a stench I can smell with all my senses other than my nose. It's like a desperation mixed with judgement and fear. Those who are the most upset about the evils of money and capital are often, sadly, the most obsessed with both. They can't live freely with an open hand, willing to take risk, save, give, earn, and thrive.
I can't give you the $31 visibility of the @onceuponatime post above though
Well, I didn't fully agree with Jerry's double in 181 theory since HF19. If I remember correctly, he argues that high SP accounts have more incentive to do so now (since HF19) because there is big profits to be made.
In my eyes HF19 just reduced this opportunity for the high SP account by giving it fairly to everyone!
Thanks for the post!
HF19 did reduce the advantage large holders of SP had, because prior to the fork that SP weighted votes exponentially, and the fork reduced that weighting to a linear model: one SP, one vote.
However, at the same time the fork reduced the labor required to fully drain VP by 400%, making it far easier to extract maximum financial gain from the rewards pool. @aggroed estimated that HF19 improved the situation by reducing the concentration of rewards in the author rewards pool to 93% of author rewards going to a handful of accounts (high SP holders) from 99%.
It may, however, not be quite so improved as that, due to the reduction in labor (and therefore time) necessary to fully drain VP.
Edit: I wanted to add that this also reduces the number of votes minnows cast by 400% as well, dramatically reducing the rewards minnows deliver via curation. This also dramatically concentrates the rewards pool in the accounts of high SP holders.
Great perspective. There should be another type of flagging here which flags a content for being abusive, plagiarism or illegal. Right now the flagging system takes away rewards which I feel gives too much of power to the whales. If some big whale does not agree wit you he can just flag you and your rewards goes to 0 even if 100 minnows find your post helpful. Also flagging can cause retaliation which can make this place toxic. I think self upvoting cannot be stopped, there are too many ways to get around it. I feel there is no use fixing it since it can't be fixed.
Never say can't.
For example we were proposing two reward pools awhile back. If we did one for comments and one for posts then these comment thieves might be able to drain that pool, without impacting the posting pool. Now if the comment pool was say 20% and the posting pool was 80% (just made these numbers up, don't set them in stone) then it would act as a stop gap and at least only 20% of the actual total reward potential across both pools would be compromised.
But still they would be able to just post and upvote their own posts. Or make alt accounts and upvote their posts?
Sure but up voting their own posts is not the problem. The new problem is people posting any number of comments... often total spam and up voting their comment 100%. Sometimes not even bothering to up vote the post they commented on.
They can do this rapidly and have all of their rewards and the reward pool focused exclusively on themselves.
If there were two pools then the most they could take from would be the comment pool. It wouldn't effect the posts as well. Right now they are all in the same pool so it is draining that for everyone and even the posts themselves.
Oh ok that makes sense
Great post. Its hard to figure out how to make your own posts worth anything when people will just read and then not upvote and if they simply disagree flag it as happened to me with a few comments. But ai definitely agree that being acrive and producing quality content is the best way to increase SP. That is proven no matter before or after HF19. Thanks for the info and effort.