We'll have to agree to disagree. A single whale CAN nuke SOME posts. But they have to prioritize which posts, and that's consensus. The ones they're nuking do not have consensus. The others that necessarily survive with successful payouts are consensus.
Nothing is going to blow up in our face if Hive gains widespread adoption because there will be too many posts and too much engagement for any peculiar preferences of an individual to make a difference. We pay a lot of attention to it now because the whole thing is small so every controversial outcome becomes a big deal.
On every platform on the internet, ever, there a variety of bad outcomes, but they're usually small and not at such a systemic level that it destroys the platform. People's accounts get hacked, get locked for mistaken reasons (and sometimes never unlocked, etc.). There is also blatant copyright infringement (someone posted an entire Disney movie on Twitter in HD the other day and it stayed there for a few days before being removed), impersonation, aggressive disinformation campaigns, etc. Perfection isn't achievable. Same here.
Erm... do you mind to paraphrase that a bit, mate? Please, define WTF is "community" consensus under the premise that you are describing.
View more
Once again, I do thank you for your engagement.
And, yes, I do agree that we disagree. My goal here, though, is to discern and discover some meaningful feasible space wherein we do agree, or at least where we can agree.
On this, we both agree.
So what you're saying here is that any post that gets passed over by 'any and all whale DVs' has thusly received the consensus blessing of all whales and thus is allowed to bathe in the HIVE inflation reward pool.
I think it's important that we define our terms. When I use the term 'consensus', this is what I mean:
Given that definition (which you are, of course, free to disagree with), one could say that a form of consensus is being reached on those posts that are passed over. However, one cannot say that any form of consensus is being reached on those posts that are being nuked. Consensus is thwarted because there is no viable (i.e. sustainable) mechanism wherein dissenting voices (i.e. those who believe a nuked post DOES warrant a portion of the reward pool) can have their "opinions ideas and concerns ... taken into account."
In other words, we do not have consensus on the overall distribution of the reward pool. What we have is a semblance of consensus that, in reality, gives unchecked veto power to each and every whale. Each and every whale is free to single out individual accounts and/or ideas that they dislike, and completely and totally remove them from participation in the reward pool.
And, whereas other whales are essentially defenseless in combatting the unilateral nuking of individual accounts and/or ideas, this enables each whale who chooses to exercise this power to systematically eliminate his/her enemies by simply being focused and persistent.
This is exemplified by the situation with @themarkymark, @newsflash, and @xeldal. The current protocol affords no mechanism wherein the innumerable accounts who value marky's contributions can have their voices heard.
A better consensus mechanism for the overall distribution of the reward pool is what I am and will continue vying for. A change to the mechanism so that true consensus can be more readily achieved.
No protocol will be perfect. However, I am convinced that we can do better.
This is consistent with the sentiments @theycallmedan mentioned in this post in August 2021.
I have some additional ideas that I believe will further improve on Dan's proposed Counter-DV concept, which I hope to share soon.
Here are two relevant excerpts from Dan's post:
View more