Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
I started this post as a comment to @ura-soul’s post requesting clarification as to whether accounts upvoting his posts were auto-votes (because at least one of the whales downvoting his posts was claiming that as the reason). However, by the time I finished explaining my thoughts (in addition to directly answering his question), I realized that my explanation might be better served as a stand-alone post, so here it is.
Here was my response to @ura-soul regarding the ‘problem’ raised by his post (i.e. subjective downvotes):
The notion that a whale (or group of whales) would downvote your posts to zero because of presumed auto-voting is utterly ridiculous, imo (like this post, which generated tons of engagement, but was still DV'ed to zero).
Quite honestly, all this disgusts me.
However, despite my disagreement with those actions (and my disdain for those who promulgate them), I am resolved that the Layer 1 'feature' that allows such actions must remain (as a feature on Layer 1, that is), at least for now.
The downside to such behavior is that there is no way you can win against it (on Layer 1). As soon as one or more HIVE whales start DV'ing your posts, then it becomes costly for your supporters to continue upvoting you (because their curation rewards get zeroed out along with your author rewards).
So, there is an action by the DV'ers that costs them nothing, but costs you (in rewards that they claim were never really yours, which is technically true) but their actions also cost your supporters, and cost them curation rewards that REALLY WERE THEIRS (or at least should have been).
And, the DV'ers can continue this ad infinitum because it costs them nothing. The fact that it costs your supporters means many of them will stop upvoting your content (to stop incessantly losing their curation rewards). This is why such action is so disgusting to me -- it penalizes your supporters until they stop supporting you (or just keeps penalizing them, if they're stupid enough to continue throwing their curation rewards away).
I will be posting a more detailed explanation about my thoughts on this topic, and will link to that post here after it's published. (HINT: The answer to this problem resides on Layer 2, or at least it will shortly.)
In the meantime, I wish you the best in your fight against this abusive behavior; however, imho, you will be better off doing whatever you can to appease them rather than fight them or try to argue with them; they sincerely believe they are the 'righteous' ones. Nothing you or I say will convince them otherwise.
Below is my expanded commentary on the situation.
@dwinblood wrote an excellent post a while back explaining why DV'ing to zero anything other than plagiarism or fraud is malicious and that anyone who participates in such action has zero credibility (well, those are my words, not his -- read the post and comments to get his perspective).
My advice to those on the receiving end of subective DVs (such as @ura-soul) is to stop focusing your efforts primarily on Layer 1 and find some Layer 2 tribes to engage with (or create one of your own). Then encourage your followers to join you. Of course, they will, indirectly, if they comment on your posts and you upvote their comments -- they will get rewarded with the Layer 2 token(s).
I have been active within the proofofbrain tribe since its inception. It has its own subjective-DV problem (with at least one whale willing to DV posts to zero based on subjective disagreement). Although my attempts to change the ‘community rules’ to ban subjective downvoting was rejected (twice, actually), I will be launching a Layer 2 token in the coming weeks that will be complementary to POB, and will handle malicious behavior using the Layer 2 mute function rather than DVs. This will give folks a realm where the only action available to whales who dislike you is to ignore you.
However, it is important (for @ura-soul and others) to realize that Layer 2 (i.e. Hive-Engine) tribes and tokens are not at all decentralized, even if they claim to be. One hundred percent of the control over the issuance of the token, inflation rate, tribe-wide muting, etc. is at the mercy of the issuing account (see this excellent post by @themarkymark for more details about the risks involved).
Personally, I believe there will be a strong demand for the alternative I am about to launch. If I am wrong, though, I will rest easier knowing that I did my part to instantiate a potential solution rather than just complaining about the status quo.
In closing, I think it is important for folks to understand the fact that Layer 1 needs to be structured a certain way in order to ensure account-level censorship-resistance (i.e. when someone follows your account, they will forever and for always be able to view your posts, unless and until THEY or YOU choose to sever that connection). @theycallmedan did an excellent job here explaining why Layer 1 needs are inherently different from those of Layer 2, and why it is important not to confuse the two:
On a scaled layer 1 that is censorship resistant, you can then build layer 2 apps with various governance models. The key point is, on layer 2, you no longer need to worry about censorship resistance of the base layer, IE your metadata (account, community list, etc.) ... [because that feature is an integral part of Layer 1]
That is why there should NEVER be a Layer 1 system-wide mute function (analogous to the Layer 2 tribe-wide mute function). And, that is why DVs are a necessary feature for Layer 1 (unless and until a more creative way to combat plagiarism and similar forms of abuse is demonstrated, which will undoubtedly need to happen somewhere on Layer 2 first -- so that it gets tried and tested and pulled and stretched first).
So, with all that said, as much as the “subjective downvoting” @ura-soul and others have been complaining about disgusts me, the capability to do so is woven into the cloth of Layer 1 and cannot be removed (at this juncture) without damaging the cloth itself, which would not be in anyone's best interests.
This might be a hard pill to swallow, but it is what it is (for now, at least).
image source
I often shy away from matters regarding downvotes because they can be quite controversial and also can earn you a place in some people's bad books (which is not so much of a problem to me these days).
Downvotes are necessary, even on layer 2. We cannot ignore that people exploit the loopholes in the reward system and sometimes it is not intentional in the case where one is been autovoted, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing per see. We have so demonized autovotes and failed to see its value.
There is a lot to curating than just rewarding quality posts which is subjective. For instance, I am aware of a newbie initiative that is structured to help committed newbies grow their accounts faster. The upvote on their content isn't based on its quality but more on their effort and commitment to the chain.
People reward content, personality, relationships, etc This is a social norm even on a decentralised social platform
As I have said in the past, what makes a post rewardable is the value it adds to others, and value in itself is subject. So the best thing to do would be to let people decide through upvotes and downvotes. However, the power structure on layer 1 doesn't make this a fair game--it has never been.
Layer 2 solutions seem to be the preferred option for many people, but it does have its cons.
In a nutshell, I don't think the system is structured to be fair. If it was, we will all have equal stake and votes, which isn't even ideal. So that's the dilemma.
Layer 2 is more flexible.
You actually don't have to downvote to remove rewards because tribe leaders can mute individual posts and deny rewards to individuals, depending on your set up.
It's less messy. And in that regards, downvotes becomes optional or even purely for reward disagreement.
I strongly believe one tweak would solve this. A free upvote to reverse downvotes. I talk about it here https://hive.blog/pob/@theycallmedan/proof-of-brain-theory-and-further-optimization
I reversed some of the damage from ura-soul, but in doing so I also hurt my curation rewards. No big deal to me, but a big deal to plenty and enough to make it so most shy away and or can't do it on a consistent basis without diluting themselves in the long run. I will revisit this and try to push for a community vote on it.
Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!
I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.
Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.
One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.
Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.
View more
The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.
If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.
My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).
I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.
This is interesting and something I've not thought of. Giving a DV mana pool a divy of inflation, and it acts the same as UV in terms up earning rewards for using it. Few things pop into my head ill need to give it a deeper think.
View more
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
View more
Thanks for your support Dan, it is appreciated here. I just read and reblogged your post on downvotes and you make some interesting points. I know that @r0nd0n is moving to amplify the actions of @freezepeach in a way that is not dis-similar to your ideas, but having an inbuilt system function within a DAO along the lines you suggest would maybe be the best possible option. I think that maybe your free upvote suggestion might be made simpler by just reducing the amount of free downvotes that people have to 1 per day, though the comlexity of the various proposed options will no doubt yield outcomes that I am not able to predict in advance, so maybe your model would work better.
It's definitely sub optimal to expect large stakeholders to police the network and usually it isn't needed - but then it usually isn't the case that other large stakeholders attempt to use negative reinforcement to increase their curation payouts, rather than offering positive, creative additions to the community. While it is unpleasant to see this in action and particularly when it is done under the guise of being a 'service' to the community, at the same time it is inevitable that such exploits and barriers to sustainable growth will get exposed in systems over time. The key is to focus on the solutions rather than get caught up in constant battle.
As a long time system engineer and now digital marketer, I am a fan of iterative testing of ideas and A/B testing. These allow us to see without any doubt which ideas/designs work best to achieve performance goals. Layer 2 solutions offer a definite way to test out a wide variety of ideas and I have advocated for this since the days of the mythical SMTs on Steem. We have never quite gotten there though and the high cost to entry for Layer 2 sites on Hive currently is significantly holding this process back.
If layer 2 solutions become cheap enough to enable rapid development and testing of new ideas then I think we will see these wider systemic problems resolved quickly too. In the absence of that, I would suggest being open to testing variations on downvoting via future Hard Forks, such as reducing the amount of free ones available and/or the DAO idea you mentioned.
Cheers!
Thanks for the mention. We are indeed working on a solution, which is the culmination of trial and error over these past few years. Allowing stakeholders to act in accord to with other like minded stakeholders to take the wind out of the sails with regards to politically motivated downvoters. No flag wars, no drama, just positive interaction to curb and perhaps eliminate the behavior entirely.
View more
There is a free upvote service from @droida at http://droida.ch/hive/, but I highly doubt that it could reverse the downvote of a whale, let alone a group of whales. At least currently. This project should get much more support from the community. There should be strong co-operation to reverse downvotes.
Thank you for the mention.
View more
I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:
Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.
Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.
All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.
Hi,
there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.
Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.
Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).
In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.
I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?
Thank you.
View more
That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.
I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.
With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.
A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).
The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.
View more
Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.
View more
On that same post I pointed out how the "free upvote" is basically just a nerf to downvotes (those getting downvoted, whether justified or not, can use the "free upvote" as a sort of shield, which can be harmful as often as helpful). While that would help with "bad" downvotes, it would also hurt the value of "good" downvotes. I'm far from convinced it really helps overall, and could very well make matters worse overall.
At some point, people have to just accept the fact that voted rewards are a sort of consensus-finding process, and if enough people/stake don't agree that the rewards should be paid to someone or some content, for whatever subjective reasons, that isn't consensus, and the rewards won't be paid (or less will be paid). The total amount of rewards, system-wide, will still be paid, they'll just go somewhere else, somewhere less contentious and more aligned with consensus. One poster's loss is always other posters' gain. It is a zero-sum game in a short-term sense, and inherent in that is that not everyone can win.
Absolutely! We, the consumer are at liberty to consume.
That said I worry about the volume of non-sense that often get rewarded by massive upvote. Not only it makes us look bad (like a conspiracy platform full of shady people), but also most of these folks sell their rewards immediately and therefore are a drain in the system. I don't even feel they believe in the "snake oil" they are peddling, smooth, they do it because it pays handsomely!
View more
I liked the suggestion you made to my original idea on this point. "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."
Not sure exactly how we get there, but my point remains. If you get diluted by taking action, very few, if any, will take that action. It helped a lot with DVs. While I agree we need more healthy DVs on the most post, it's rare to get a post on web2 without a downvote. It's just people need to adjust the downvote size, or it causes harm. No need to zero out a post from someone legit every time they post to the chain. So it would be nice to find a way not to be diluted when trying to find equilibrium with the token distribution.
View more
Or maybe just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
That way, if people have equal stake, it takes TWO people downvoting in order to ZERO them out.
Isn't the whole theory of downvoting supposed to be some sort of "community consensus" anyway ?
It ain't over baby!!
A couple months ago some people laughed suggested going over to Blurt. It's not a laughing matter anymore. What is this place without freedom of speech? Blind downvoting ain't the way you do it. A funny way to show they care.
' better think it over baby.
Since I have no bourbon. I've got to send you burgundy !WINE to go with these goats and some !LUV.
Congratulations, @mineopoly You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINEX With @trostparadox.
You Earned 0.100 WINEX As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/1 Successful Calls.
Contact Us : WINEX Token Discord Channel
WINEX Current Market Price : 0.400
<><
@trostparadox, you've been given LUV from @mineopoly.
Check the LUV in your H-E wallet. (1/5)
Something you just said triggered me in a good way... perhaps the key word is "blindly". If a downvote is cast without opening the content (auto down voting), it seems to be malicious. Perhaps auto downvoting could be curbed and a requirement to open the article to downvote would solve the issue... making it a manual process, though, I suppose you could teach a machine to mimic an opening of an article and downvote... just thinking in type...
weedcash front end has this i believe ( not so much the automation of process, but u cant just 'trail' ( or at least it didnt look like it moons ago when i was looking at it)
Thanks for your comments. As a professional systems engineer for over 20 years and having been witness to censorship of social media before Facebook even existed, I have been focused onto this topic since the beginning. I received death threats for sharing scientific papers that exposed the flaws in the mainstream vaccine narrative years before COVID19 and have fully expected what is happening on Hive today - I just didn't know exactly how it would manifest or through which people.
I have been working with others on a layer 2 solution to this problem for a while, but unfortunately it is on pause due to a personal issue with a key team member. Anyone creating a layer 2 solution needs to, most likely, air drop the tokens to the community in order to ensure both decentralisation and avoidance of security regulations in the US. It is wise to avoid air dropping tokens to those who are known to censor arbitrarily and since it is quite possible that earning from activity on Hive might predominately occur through layer 2 in future, it is extremely short sighted of the censors to take action now that will result in them being omitted from key air drops in future. No-one ever said censors were smart thinkers and actually, throughout history, they are ALWAYS shown to be on the wrong side of ethics and morality - leading to their ultimate demise long term.
I am more than happy to work on any layer 2 solutions that show promise. I participated in the proofofbrain tribe for a while but their site is down, was never developed and apparently the creator is gone (I don't know who that was). I looked into launching a layer 2 project via Hive Engine, but the cost is a bit high for me at present and ultimately it is a somewhat centralised system too. I look forward to the SPK network's solutions soon and also your own project - let me know if you want any help, I'm happy to provide feedback or professional services if needed.
Bring on the day that you can use open source content gateways and content policies to craft your own front end experience which is virtually I influenced by the hive trending algorithm. This issue will be solved by multiple front ends running multiple content gateways, content policies and different trending algos. It’s coming. There is little that can be done to stop it. Just patience required
id love to see 'trending' about the vote count , as opposedto 'who has the biggest bags'
Should I say that the decentralized systems are also centralized. Governed by a few. The whales are mighty after all. They can give and snatch as per their desires. They have the power to threat and they potentially do and ultimately can achieve their desirable outcomes.
I heard someone saying, "There is no law without a flaw." That's the fact, ha. To overcome that flaw there is a need of ethical and moral building that is something that never accomplishes fully.
I have never been in favor of subjective downvoting. There should be some objective standards for it like plagiarism or clear spamming, or any standard already specified by the platforms or communities.
Layer 2 has its own risks as you stated. It is not a reliable method of gaining the desirable outcome. I don't really know what technically should be, but the problem be solved at layer one.
I am practically not really knowledgeable about anything but I have a simple question?
Is it possible for the downvote system to change the post rewards to 100% curation back to the authors who voted it while the publisher don’t get any author rewards since his post is being downvoted.
That way, those who voted the post are not penalized for doing so. What do you think?
This is a fantastic post and I don't think when DV's were established it took into consideration early investors, Hive Influencers and the disparity between bloggers.
Fortunately this is a Delegated Proof Of Stake chain with elected representatives looks like @theycallmedan is onto it which is great. I will note that alot of whales do get down voted it's just that the DVs don't have the same weight.
But what we don't want happening is a Tit for tat exchange and I personally don't like the position of "don't like it down vote" because this is often misused as personal attacks. The amount of actual flat earthe content, fake news and deluded musings that are profitable are not being downvoted. Noting I don't down vote that stuff either (each to their own)
But there needs to be a mechanism that prevents or at least limits bad behaviour.
And that is upto the witnesses to lead.
Great post!
Now that my posts are all being downvoted to zero on Hive, I'm Looking foward to seeing your new layer two option.
I'm totally over all downvoting, which has ramped up greatly in the past two months.
Some people think the insiders want to drive content creators off layer one - they certainly appear to be working towards that.
A whale told me to go to blurt if I don't like downvoting - that is looking like a more solid option by the day...
https://blurt.blog/@frot
And so is Bastyon
https://bastyon.com/frot
I consider Blurt laughable but I did carefully read the help section on Bastyon.
Do you think it is more abuse-resistent than Hive? My first impression is that while abuse might be more logistic-intensive than simply buying and powering up a token, it is still relatively easy to shadowban a user you dislike (you have to hoard reputable accounts instead which opens a decent opportunity for people who are able to build them for a resell).
Can you change my mind about that?
No, I can't... but in a vague sense, it just doesn't seem set up to shadow ban a user - it would be more effort than it's worth.
Bastyon's biggest selling point is the encrypted chat - it's getting thousands of new accounts because of that.
I wasn't all that impressed with Pocketnet two years ago, but now it seems to be on the brink of going big. Rebranded, and going with encryption and no censorship, it's ready at the right time.
Blurt - I laughed at first as well - terrible name, and it got off to a slow start. But Hive is a terrible name too (hive mind), and Blurt is a real underdog. All it would take is a dozen big name Hive bloggers to move there and it could suddenly become hip. Bastyon is very different, but Blurt is basically Steemit without whales.
So if my days on Hive are pretty much over, I have three options - Bastyon, Blurt, or a new Hive based front end that's in the works. One way or another I want no downvoting. At this point I'm open minded, and waiting to see how things play out. I've met some amazing people on Hive and if we are going to be forced off the Hive platform, I want to keep my contacts in one place
View more
the "problem" is FREE downvotes
no trial
no appeal
"they" tell you to beg for mercy
case in point - https://peakd.com/hive-122315/@logiczombie/100percent-downvote-on-this-post-from-acidyo-an-hour-ago
100% downvote from acidyo an hour ago
Rather new on the hive, what's the difference between layer 1 and layer 2?
layer one is Hive, layer two are community tokens
Layer 1 is the base blockchain (i.e. "Hive"). All posts and comments reside on Layer 1, along with all account-level transactions (e.g. who follows whom).
However, there is currently another blockchain that runs parallel to Layer 1, called Hive-Engine. It is a 'Layer 2' blockchain. Other Layer 2 blockchains are under development. At present, though, Hive-Engine is the only Layer 2 chain.
Layer 1 tokens include HIVE (which can be staked as HIVE Power) and HBD. Layer 1 rewards are issued as some combination of HIVE, HP, and HBD.
Layer 2 tokens (also called H-E tokens, short for Hive-Engine tokens), include everything else (go here to see a list of them), such as LEO, POB, DEC, SPS, BEE, APE, etc. You post 'on Layer 2' whenever you use certain tags, such as leofinance and proofofbrain, but those tags just tell Hive-Engine to reward the post with Layer 2 tokens in addition to Layer 1 tokens.
Also, a single post (and all its related comments) can earn multiple Layer 2 tokens at the same time (depending on which tags were included in the original post). For example, this post (and all comments and sub-comments) is earning POB, BEE, PAL, NEOXAG, and ARCHON.
So, if you join a Layer 2 community (also called a 'tribe') and everyone in that tribe only owns the Layer 2 token associated with that tribe, and no one who owns HIVE (or HP) ever votes for any of the posts associated with that tribe, then although the posts reside on Layer 1, there are no Layer 1 rewards being issued to the author of that post, or to its curators, or to any commenters. In that sense, the Layer 2 tribe can essentially operate in complete oblivion to Layer 1. In fact, the Layer 2 tribe could even have its own login system such that Layer 2 tribe members might not even know that they are posting to Hive. LeoFinance has an onboarding feature like that. You could conceivably join LeoFinance (using their Twitter onboarding process) and post and interact without ever realizing you are actually doing so 'on Hive'.
@trostparadox thanks for educating us...now i understand how layer 1 and layer 2 works ...i am looking forward to your layer 2 community that you want to create.. ..
And I’ll just jump in here. Layer 0 is the community that makes this a social blockchain. Speaking of which! It’s always good to see new people here on the blockchain! Welcome and thank you for asking this question. I think there could be lots of other people wondering the same things you are. 👍
Keeping asking the questions and commenting. Your on the right track! 🙂
If you do start a new layer 2 hive group let me know.
Will do.
Whew! Lot of info in one post. So filled right now.
@scholaris, Word of the week announcement post brought me here.
Also, the upvotes I have been receiving from you on my entries.
Thanks @trostparadox.
Looking forward to Layer 2😊
Great anylisis and have missed your posts! I agree and also wanted to add the only real ways for a newbie to build stake is to focus on a tribe that interests them and grow within it.
Have I missed a blog on this new token your launching or is it still to come? Either ways have some swap.busd ready to go to launch in.
!PIZZA !LUV !ENGAGE
<><
@trostparadox, you've been given LUV from @failingforwards.
Check the LUV in your H-E wallet. (1/3)
Yes, Level 2 is the way to go. I hope for much more tribes (outposts) on HIVE and especially looking forward to your project announced here between the lines. !BEER !WINE !BRO
Congratulations, @no-advice You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINEX With @trostparadox.
You Earned 0.100 WINEX As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/3 Successful Calls.
Contact Us : WINEX Token Discord Channel
WINEX Current Market Price : 0.460
I respect your effort into creating different solutions and accepting that downvotes need to exist on Hive. Wish you best of luck with your experiment and also agree that downvoting to 0 where effort, content and engagement existed does more harm than good, in general zero'ing is not good, no matter the real intention of the downvoter.
Also @trostparadox at this point this post is showing $196
And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.
My direct question to you is this:
Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point? Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?
That is incorrect. 95% of the quoted text was my own, from this comment, which currently has $0.58 in pending rewards.
This question should be directed at those who voted for it. They are the ones assigning value. However, from a market-based perspective, assuming free will and free exchange (as in, as long as those who voted for it were not somehow coerced or duped into doing so), then I would unequivocally say, "No." Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.
Yes, and that is exactly what I would expect. I post rather infrequently. I only post when I have something important to announce or when I have something significant to say -- something that will either be significantly beneficial to potential readers or something that warrants considerable attention and/or engagement or debate.
As such, whenever I post, I expect it to be above-average both in terms of quality and importance and (hopefully) engagement. However, that is not something I can definitively know a priori. As stated above, I began writing this as a mere comment. After spending well over an hour formulating thoughts and organizing them, I realized that this was something that needed its own space, to generate its own awareness and its own engagement. And, in retrospect, it looks like that was the correct decision on my part, because in the marketplace of ideas, there seems to be some resonance, either with the ideas themselves, or with the need for engagement and debate about the topic, or both.
Yes, AND those who didn't, like me for example, and others as well.
And yes, you don't post frequently, and that must be taken into account. Also your post is thoughtful and NOT a rant. You have positive things to contribute.
Yet, I do think your post is over-rewarded compared to average original posts on hive. I am glad to see that you agree.
Good. I think we are communicating. You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.
View more
sorry i find a little flaw in this particular line -
Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.u got hit with a trafalgar, haejin/rancho, etc vote, it then has a 20+ person trail, and then some of those have another 20 person trail attached that mirror votes.... so to assume that all those that voted actually READ the article is a bit too much for me to be able to believe - jussayin ;)
(had to go doube check i wasnt talking out my ass first ) XD
please dont nuke XD
View more
Its probably worth much more
Well darling, you have already made your call :)
You voted this post at 100%, that is the best you can do.
View more
I feel this post is well-rewarded given the professionalism and information on governance that is presented. When you include the engagement for this post, I think it's under-rewarded. It gets very tiring reading emotional rants about voting and the influence these types of posts can garner. I feel like I've lost months of work from only a couple of tirades.
The engagement alone is worth the value and serves as a basis for how people should communicate. I mean, how many articles are there that just discusses the system and its rules with the likes of yourself, trost, dan, and anyone else who wishes to discuss their views on the matter. There's no animosity, just a discussion of what is and the plans of what could be.
This is the kind of example of an article/engagement I'll be passing on to newcomers for recommended reading.
I agree. You can read my conversation with the author.
View more
100%. It has become tiring and it also has distracted many from what could be. Hive talking about Hive shows that we are not yet mature and these could be considered growing pains. We have not arrived yet and have a long way to go to innovate Hive to where it should be. A top 10 coin. The longer we take to establish social norms with actual code… the worse off this blockchain and it’s community becomes. Every one of us has made a decision to trade our perfectly good Bitcoin for Hive. We have done so with the expectation that Hive (in the long run) will be something the world needs just as much as the Bitcoin we traded it for. But I have a feeling missing another Bitcoin bull run is going to reduce our numbers significantly… and right now it’s all hands on deck so how we treat our own does matter.
This is a post that’s extremely valuable… and unfortunately so. The sooner we switch from talking about Hive to using Hive to talk about what people care about (more widely) the sooner Hive will reach mass adoption and become what it could be.
Before that can happen… the DV and it’s current use needs thought and innovation.
Thank you for your comment.
-Wil
I was watching for your post about the current DV situation… I’m of the opinion that this needs to be fixed at layer 1 however.
We need to pay the price because currently capital freedom (This is what investors and especially entrepreneurs like me are looking at when we examine the fundamentals of a project like Hive.) isn’t available on layer 1 and that is eroding our marketability in huge ways.
Right now (with the current undeveloped DV structure) we are trading 1 abuse for another. This is sub-optimal and a hard sell at best.
What am I eluding to? Currently… it is possible for 1 account to own another account financially with the DV.
This perpetuates group think throughout the network and only serves the larger untouchables on this platform. (Take a look at what’s transpired on my most recent @AdventureReady post to see the tip of the iceberg about that. I have reblogged the post I’m mentioning with this account.)
Basically a whale is directing smaller accounts in the background to do his dirty work for him… and this is VERY bad for business (and ultimately Hive as a utility structure.)
If you would like to see what I mean… take note as the above mentioned event is connected with what follows:
A couple weeks ago I “tried out” the DV (as it is a “main feature”) awhile back by DV’ing on 2 comments (with no rewards above $0.10).
These were low end comments at best and rather than have them featured at the top of the post’s content I thought it would be best to move them in rank down to the bottom of the comments section. (One comment was someone bullying another user and the other was someone celebrating “how they were one of the mean people on the blockchain) 🤷♂️
Anyways… what ensued was very interesting…
Apparently the only people allowed to do any DV’ing here on Hive are the people already doing it. Just watch… this comment I have made on your post is going to yield somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 DV’s.
I’m not kidding here… it has rendered my notification system all but useless in fact. This sort of behaviour is what I’m calling “DV Spam” and I believe it is a huge deterrent to Hive’s utility sell.
I realize that we need ways to control for plagiarism and spam on the blockchain… but this responsibility shouldn’t be done at the individual level but rather collectively at the community level making use of DPOS and a dashboard feature for posts that are transitioning through a predefined flagging process.
This is what I mean by undeveloped DV... in its current state it is very raw, unfriendly, and far to subjective allowing in effect 1 account to “own” another (at worst) or the perpetuation of “group think” (at best).
I believe we can never innovate the next step (layer 2) effectively if we don’t first address the disfunction already taking place on layer 1.
Derivatives of derivatives scale either functional utility or disfunction abuse. Our foundations are what grant everything built on them their stability/value and so I am serious when I say… We need to continue to innovate new and better ways to human and we need to do it at layer 1.
If we can not do this… building out a layer 2 solution will be absolute misery.
Launching viable ideas as an entrepreneur is already a difficult endeavour wrought with high amounts of risk and all the stress that goes along with that.
We need friendly social environments to innovate in and invite people to.
Environments where raw exposure to DV’ing (with out a due process) are good for bots but bad for humans.
That’s why (for now) I have decided to discontinue 3 years of effort building out my 2 fitness business’s on the blockchain and powered down all my Hive except for that associated with @Comet.Ranker.
Let’s face it…
It’s hard to do anything positive in a DV charged social environment.
Looking forward to your response.
@wil.metcalfe
P.S. @ura-soul thank you for writing the last 3 posts about this issue. I have read every word and every comment marking them with upvotes along the way so that I can keep track of the ones I have read and the ones I haven’t yet read. I will be revisiting your post’s often as I believe this is integral to Hive’s success or demise.
Yes, but what did you do to get downvoted? I am on a DV trail that focuses bad behaviour etc. I'm not familiar with what has occured with yourself but happy to hear it.
Ah ha! One of the people I wanted to speak with about this! 👍
Before I get into it… you may want to consider removing yourself from the trail you are associated with… it’s a bad look especially with the level of conflict, debate, and turmoil currently at play around the issue of DV’ing…But this is just a suggestion. I respect ownership and freedom most of all and so I am not going to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do with your stake. (Unlike some around here…) 🤷♂️
First things first… your jumping immediately to the conclusion that I have done something “wrong”.
So this is we’re we need to start.
There are people here on the blockchain that think that they can determine what people should or shouldn’t do with their stake (as mentioned above) and then there are those who have put it upon themselves to label other Hive owners and subsequently downvote them indiscriminately without proper basis or process. (In my context I believe this to be DV Spam and also Abuse.)
Here’s an example of this when I announced that I was shutting down my fitness business (incorporated and trademarked I will add) after 3 years of attempting to make them succeed on the blockchain:
https://ecency.com/automaticwin/@adventureready/adventure-ready-milestone-marker-oct
As you can see I stood up for myself against a whale asserting my rights as a Hive owner. (This is also when the DV situation I described above transpired and is now on going.)
To be plain before the above mentioned situations… originally I was accused of “comment farming”.
I have openly contested this and even written a White Paper on the importance of engagement and rewarding engagement with a “comment ranking” method.
Here’s the official #CometWeek White Paper:
https://ecency.com/hive/@wil.metcalfe/launching-cometweek-1000-hive-reward
As well… it should be noted that I have personally given away thousands of Hive before I was labeled in this way and have also given away thousands of Hive afterward. I, first and foremost, value social capital and believe that engagement is the best way to compound trust on the blockchain. This is why I have been giving away so much Hive for close to 4 years now.
You can verify my transactions in all of my accounts:
Fitness Business’s: @AdventureReady
@BeachReady
Hive Engagement Service:
@Comet.Ranker
And my personal training account (I’m a certified personal trainer with over 10 years of experience in the fitness industry as a trainer and business owner.)
@wil.metcalfe
Check and you will see. Thousands of Hive.
I find it insulting that petty and small minded people would accuse me of such nonsense… and I’m not even going to get into just how subjective the labels are that have been imposed and thrown around. It’s to the point where I have to call it what it is… labels and lies.
There’s a lot of breadcrumbs to follow… and I’m not in the habit of answering to anyone about what I choose to do with my stake…
Stake I accumulated by selling my physical business, my stock accumulations, and also my savings, and the posts and content I have generated over the years to add value to the Hive community and blockchain.
I even have held top 5 position for the promotion of Hive on Twitter (which takes 5hrs plus per. day) for months and as everyone knows… this is all work done for free.
I know for a fact that I don’t deserve this sort of shitty treatment…. And I wonder to myself how many people have already concluded this.
And I also wonder how many new people (be they power players or regular beginners) would put up with this level of disfunction and abuse?
Needless to say…
Until the DV is further developed with the entire Hive community in mind I won’t be telling my friends, family, and famous about Hive.
And just for 1 example… one of my Twitter friends is Mark Moss. (Him and I speak occasionally.)
What I’m saying here is…
We gotta see the current DV for what it is… a perpetuation of abuse and a system that trades 1 abuse for another.
This is effecting our standing within the wider crypto community and it is wiping out our marketability and market prospects across the board.
Savvy investors know it and are watching… this is an embarrassment and most people won’t stake their reputation let alone their capital while these practices continue.
I hope that you can see…
I care a lot about the Hive community and the technology it is based UPon…
I see Hive as a once in a lifetime opportunity to innovate new and better ways to human.
That’s what excited me nearly 4 years ago… and it’s why I never powered down (only invested) year after year after year…
The current DV structure has me having second thoughts…
I’m saddened by this…
Very much.
If you doubt my sincerity…
Please check each of my comments that I have made. You will note that I put a lot of care into each comment.
Also note the attention to detail and what I have put into my posts over the years…
I have respected the blockchain foundations my content is hosted on… I even ditched Facebook and only used Twitter to promote Hive. (And that’s saying something because I have the @beachready Twitter handle… it’s a coveted user name…)
Have I convinced you yet?
I hope so…
Please stop what you are doing and give the current DV structure more thought… especially when it is used in a trail like this.
It’s doing more harm than good.
@wil.metcalfe
Has a history of trying to defend anyone and everyone as long as it allows him to go on endless rants, many of whom have been clear abusers but as long as it gets him some attention he seems to love it. Caught voting up comments of alts and other nice stuff.
View more
Ya I'm not a fan of blind downvotes trails as it seems you're on. If you do decide to post more I'll be sure to counter some of it if it continues.
Really?
How about I am not a fan of someone who blindly jump into drama without getting to know the background information?
Here's a short version for ya.
I don't like people self voting comments on the grounds that they are "providing value".
I don't like someone who behaves like I need to run by them for every downvote I cast. He couldn't be bothered to get into our channels or ask why things happen. The first response is always, "whoever downvoting is bad".
I don't appreciate people equating everyone downvoting operating the same way Hivewatchers operate.
You aren't exactly the best judge of character on this chain. I would kindly ask you to not be involved in things that don't concern you.
View more
No Dan. I assure you that they are not blind DV. They are highly targeted and directed specifically at Will. There are valid reasons. I can explain more in private, but honestly I don't think it is worth our time.
Trust me Dan. I am doing is for a long time. Also I am a reasonable person with a stable stake.
View more
ENGAGEtoday.PIZZA Holders sent $PIZZA tips in this post's comments:
@atma.love(3/10) tipped @jelly13 (x1)
failingforwards tipped trostparadox (x1)
Learn more at https://hive.pizza.
Congratulations @trostparadox! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with the following badge:
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
LOL... before opening this post, i really should have thought about how much data it was gonna cost me XD .... 4:15 am and im already half way through my 500mb allocation for the day ( $2 a day optus) - looks like its gonna be a $4 day. (up to 1gb data for the day )
oh well such is life.
Congratulations @trostparadox! You received a personal badge!
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz: