If every user can see a different ranking because of decentralized curation, then mathematically the pollution of rankings by manipulators becomes impotent and relevance of rankings for users is retained. The original algorithm I offered probably was undecidable, but I think I’ve since figured out how to do it. This would also ameliorate this bullshit of whales downvoting (and thus censoring) content for all viewers, as happened to me (at the hands of whale @chryspano) when I wrote a blog that was critical of EOS and consortium blockchains.
P.S. Side-effect is that I can’t even make an archive of the comments on that page by using archive.is or archive.org because Steemit doesn’t display the comments on censored posts until the View button is clicked (that View button only appears for blogs which have been censored by whales). And Busy.org doesn’t display the comments until the page is scrolled down. I was banned from Bitcointalk.org and Quora because of my controversial and frank posting choices. That is why decentralized curation is very important to me and I will make sure it is implemented in a replacement for Steem soon. I won’t even publish my most politically incorrect blogs to Medium for fear of being banned, such as the recent blog which assimilated all the incontrovertible proof that 9/11 and other false-flags are being perpetrated by the secret intelligence agencies of the DEEP STATE.
Causing content to be rankeddisappear according to one whale’s preferences doesn’t match the preferences of all the readers the content has been hidden from. The entire point is to match the preferences of users based on the expression of their past voting patterns, so that votes from like-minded people impact the rankings for like-minded people.
Fool yourself with false power if you wish. No incentive was removed. It only increased the incentive. Observe.
The market will move to what provides the most relevant and organic matching of preferences. Social networking is about diversity, not overlords. Their days are numbered.
Like I said, it would save time if you'd just bullet point all the things you know so that I can then believe those things without having to think. Then we won't have that pesky back-and-forth where you make your random assertions that in no way relate to anything I've previously said.
Then we won't have that pesky back-and-forth where you make your random assertions that in no way relate to anything I've previously said.
Did you say anything? Kiss you own ass. I’ve already explained it.
Your comment history is peppered with snide memes and such. So I opened the discussion by giving you a taste of your own medicine, yet it wasn’t overly disrespectful. I presented you a technical response by way of analogy. It was also sort of testing you with a puzzle.
If every user can see a different ranking because of decentralized curation, then mathematically the pollution of rankings by manipulators becomes impotent and relevance of rankings for users is retained. The original algorithm I offered probably was undecidable, but I think I’ve since figured out how to do it. This would also ameliorate this bullshit of whales downvoting (and thus censoring) content for all viewers, as happened to me (at the hands of whale @chryspano) when I wrote a blog that was critical of EOS and consortium blockchains.
P.S. Side-effect is that I can’t even make an archive of the comments on that page by using
archive.isorarchive.orgbecause Steemit doesn’t display the comments on censored posts until theViewbutton is clicked (thatViewbutton only appears for blogs which have been censored by whales). AndBusy.orgdoesn’t display the comments until the page is scrolled down. I was banned fromBitcointalk.organd Quora because of my controversial and frank posting choices. That is why decentralized curation is very important to me and I will make sure it is implemented in a replacement for Steem soon. I won’t even publish my most politically incorrect blogs to Medium for fear of being banned, such as the recent blog which assimilated all the incontrovertible proof that 9/11 and other false-flags are being perpetrated by the secret intelligence agencies of the DEEP STATE.Removing incentive is not censorship.
Causing content to be
rankeddisappear according to one whale’s preferences doesn’t match the preferences of all the readers the content has been hidden from. The entire point is to match the preferences of users based on the expression of their past voting patterns, so that votes from like-minded people impact the rankings for like-minded people.Fool yourself with false power if you wish. No incentive was removed. It only increased the incentive. Observe.
The market will move to what provides the most relevant and organic matching of preferences. Social networking is about diversity, not overlords. Their days are numbered.
Like I said, it would save time if you'd just bullet point all the things you know so that I can then believe those things without having to think. Then we won't have that pesky back-and-forth where you make your random assertions that in no way relate to anything I've previously said.
Did you say anything? Kiss you own ass. I’ve already explained it.
Your comment history is peppered with snide memes and such. So I opened the discussion by giving you a taste of your own medicine, yet it wasn’t overly disrespectful. I presented you a technical response by way of analogy. It was also sort of testing you with a puzzle.