English: Please scroll down.
Community-Abstimmung
Die letzte Zeit wurde viel über Delegationen und Vote-Trading-Services geschrieben. Der Anlass ist, dass immer mehr User ihre Blurt-Power oder Teile davon an diese Services delegieren.
Wir können an dem Beispiel "Steemit" sehen, wohin das führt.
Es wird unsere Blurt-Community zerstören.
Es wird Blurt zerstören.
Es ist nicht sozial, seine Power zu delegieren und nur noch schwache Votes an andere User geben zu können.
Es nützt nur sehr großen Accounts und schadet kleinen Accounts.
Die meisten User, die ich kenne, haben die gleiche Ansicht wie ich.
Ich hatte einen Kompromiss versucht und einen neuen tag #iduvts geschaffen.
Sowohl mein Post zu diesem Thema, als auch die Artikel unter dem neuen tag, wurden mit tomoyan-GIFs gespammt.
Bis HF18 gab es auf Steemit keine Möglichkeit, Power zu delegieren. Kein User hatte etwas vermisst. Die Leute, die die Möglichkeit für Delegationen damals geschaffen haben, sehen das inzwischen auch nicht unkritisch.
Was mit der Änderung des Codes geschaffen wurde, kann auch mit der Änderung des Codes ganz einfach wieder entfernt werden.
Und ich stelle hier zur Abstimmung, die Möglichkeit für Delegationen aus dem Blurt-Code wieder zu entfernen.
Ohne diese Entfernung haben wir keine Chance gegen Vote-Trading-Services!
Um Projekte oder neue User zu fördern, gibt es auch andere Möglichkeiten.
Gleichzeitig stelle ich zur Abstimmung, Vote-Kauf-Services zu verbieten. Dies sollte in unsere AGB aufgenommen werden.
Bitte gebt unter einem der beiden Kommentare unten eure Stimme ab. Danke!
Bitte reblurtet diesen Post, damit möglichst alle User davon erfahren!
English
Community Voting.
The last time a lot was written about delegations and vote trading services. The reason is that more and more users delegate their blurt power or parts of it to these services.
We can see where this is going with the "Steemit" example.
It will destroy our Blurt community.
It will destroy Blurt.
It is not social to delegate your power and only be able to give weak votes to other users.
It only benefits very large accounts and hurts small accounts.
Most users I know have the same view as me.
I had tried a compromise and created a new tag #iduvts.
Both my post on this topic, and the articles under the new tag, were spammed with tomoyan-GIFs.
Until HF18, there was no way to delegate power on Steemit. No user had missed anything. The people who created the possibility for delegations back then are not uncritical about it now either.
What was created with the change of the code can also be removed quite easily with the change of the code.
And I put it to a voting here to remove the possibility for delegations from the Blurt code again.
Without this removal we have no chance against vote trading services!
To promote projects or new users, there are also other possibilities.
At the same time I put to a voting to ban vote-buying-services. This should be included in our terms and conditions.
Please cast your vote under one of the two comments below. Thanks!
Please reblurt this post so that as many users as possible know about it!
I did not realize there were two posts...one for witnesses to voice their opinion and one for the community at large. I am moving what I wrote on the other post here and deleted the other.
First of all I am not a witness, but want to provide some input on this subject.
Complete removal of delegating does not seem fair to those using it properly. I have a number of accounts that were created from the original HF that created Blurt. I also took over my daughter's and granddaughter's accounts. I then delegated my HP from some accounts to support my curation accounts (3 at this time). I did not want to completely empty the accounts so delegation was the best option. It leaves the door open to expand my curation project if the need arises.
If memory serves me Blurt also used delegations to help some projects get off the ground and running, and later decreased and then removed them.
I also delegate to my curators to help them build their presence and have more Voting Power. It is also a form of payment for the hard work they do for me and the Blurt Community.
I also will delegate to some newcomers, if I feel they have strong potential, after seeing their first few posts. I have given Blurt to some, sipping the delegation aspect, but found some stopped being active on Blurt. Delegations allow me to take back from them the HP if they are not going to use it.
I do accept delegations for payment for voting. If someone does delegate some HP to one of the accounts they will not increase their chances of getting their post curated. In the event that someone delegates and then starts pushing me for votes I ban them from my Discord Community and mute them in all my accounts.
I understand the issue of the vote-buying services, and have stated our position elsewhere. We will not knowingly curate posts of users that use the vote-buying services. I already have had one person let me know they discontinued their use of those services.
There has to be a way to allow for proper delegation of HP, and still control or eliminate the vote buying services. I do not know how bots work, only that they automatically vote on posts without a human reviewing the post.
Thank you for listening (reading) my thoughts. I know if I have to un-delegate everything there would be some disruption with our curation project. Such a move (complete removal of delegations) just punishes those using it properly. In reading both posts it reminds of hive would do a hardfork based on a knee jerk reaction to something. So I really hope this is thought through carefully and not rushed into. Hive never seemed to look at the long range consequences of major changes. I really hope Blurt is above that. Although I am concerned based on many witnesses reactions to getting rid of delegations.
My time is limited and I have written too much as usual. I have to get on with my life duties now.
I stand by what you have said fully. There has to be another way because delegation is also a very good community development tool.
the whole point of crypto is that each person can spend their coins as they please
why is vote buying "bad" ?
seriously, everyone keeps saying this, but i don't understand why.
What if everyone who has a lot of money to delegate to a big account (not to a community) just to get personal upvotes and curation rewards?
I am not understanding your analogy????
Okay, as you said above that disagree with removing delegates, I think that's completely true, considering people are using it properly and one of them is helping a community. But people who buy BP upvotes or delegates specifically for the benefit of curating their posts, what are your views, and what do you think about it, should they be removed from delegation?
I do not support buying up-votes or using delegation as a means to having their posts curated. I have instructed my curators to not curate posts from those that do this.
I am not sure if we can find everyone that does when curating, given over the 3 platforms they curate 800 to 1000 posts per week. But every effort is being made to watch out for these. One of these services publishes a report of those who received upvotes from them, which helps find some more easily.
But, I do believe in the necessity of using delegations properly.
I trust this clarifies my views.
This is a decision that many people here really want, maybe if all the witnesses there did the same it would be even better.
the whole point of crypto is that each person can spend their coins as they please
@r2cornell I am pleased with your case on delegations I am sure that there are those who understand that logistics upon which the delegations are built. If delegations are used wisely as you have articulated, then there should be no need to remove it again if someone who has delegated to you troubles for votes removing and blocking such a user is not a bad idea.
Bitte schreibe unter diesen Kommentar deinen Account-Namen, wenn du gegen meinen Vorschlag stimmst.
Please write your account name below this comment if you vote against my proposal.
@the-gorilla
Whilst this is a necessary topic of conversation and a decision that you feel needs to be made, this question should not be being asked by a user who has repeatedly criticised voting bots and self-upvoting
As a society, we attract people (and in this case followers) who hold the same beliefs as us, which is why we're attracted to each other. Which means that importantly...
the result of any poll that you post will have a natural bias towards your own views and not necessarily those of the Blurt platform
It's also been presented in such a way that represents your own bias to the subject as you have not mentioned any of the advantages that delegations can bring, nor why the ability to delegate was created in the 1st place. Why were delegations created? I can't imagine it was with the intention of allowing bidbots to exist.
I delegate a proportion of my Steem (obviously a different platform) to help encourage new authors to post more, engage more and succeed. They are empowered by this and add far more to the community than I alone can do through their content, comments and support for other users.
I see that you have over 6.6m Blurt - yet you choose to try to use it all yourself instead of helping the Blurt Social System by allowing others that you have grown to trust to distribute your rewards ability more easily and more fairly.
Imagine what 66 users, all empowered with 100,000 Blurt Power could do compared to you alone.
Now THAT, would be sociable
I also notice that you are maintaining your record of 100% self-upvoting and not proposing to ban this practise.
I think you have no idea what he is doing with his stake...
And if a whale doesn't want to vote manually they can always use a voting trail and follow a good community curation account with x%
But having a vote buying account like upvu will hurt blurt a lot more. Just take a look at trending and you will see a lot korean copy/paste posts upvoted to trending by upvu. If thats your vision of blurt then we can bury it and hop over to steem
Danke dir!
Zwei kleine Belege:
Meine letzten 300 Votes, 11,3% Selbstvotes
Meine letzten 100.000 Votes, 21,4% Selbstvotes
Bedeutet: Im schlechtesten Fall gebe ich 4/5 an die Community.
(Bei hohem Invest-Risiko für die Anlage meiner eigentlichen Altersversorgung)
Ich denke, wenn das alle machen würden, ginge es Blurt sehr gut! ;-)
Danke noch mal!
Thank you for the patronising response.
It's an immutable blockchain. Where everything is seen. So perhaps you are blinded by what you want to see and also have no idea what he is doing with his stake...
What I see is that he self-upvotes 100% of his posts. Which is anti-social. And therefore extremely hypocritical.
I know the damage that Upvu can do. I'm on Steemit and see what's it's done and would have absolutely no problem seeing bidbots banned. But... the important parts of my reply (which you've chosen to totally ignore - perhaps I will patronise you by suggesting that you review your own blinkered bias when replying) are the good that a delegation can do and shouldn't be removed in a knee jerk reaction because the person who's proposed its self-upvotes are decreasing in value with each delegation that UpVu receives.
Steemit is in the process of removing posts that have been upvoted by bots from the trending page. That solves your problem of the trending page looking bad.
Perhaps if you took a bit of time to digest what's being said rather than what you want it to say, you'll stop encouraging people to sell their investment and actually help Blurt to grow.
@double-u makes normaly 1 or 2 Post a week and if he self votes the 1 or 2 Post a week it is not bad . If he would make every day 4 Post and votes them with 100% that would be not good 4 sure .
@double-u says himself that self-voting is anti-social so why differentiate between 1 self-upvote and 10 self-upvotes? It's hypocritical.
I'm interested at what point you think @double-u's self-upvoting would not be good? I'm also interested in @double-u's opinion on this, especially having supported your comment (which implies agreement with your point).
1 post per week
2 posts per week
3 posts per week
4 posts per week
5 posts per week
6 posts per week
1 post per day
2 posts per day
3 posts per day
4 posts per day
5 posts per day
6 posts per day
7 posts per day
etc.
Why should I argue with you when you don't even read my comment properly. There you will already find my answer to your question.
This is an important point of discussion and if you don't want to get involved in it, you shouldn't have chosen to reply.
I apologise for over complicating the question and including options that you had already eliminated. I will simplify the question for you...
At what point you think @double-u's self-upvoting would not be good? I'm also interested in @double-u's opinion on this, especially having supported your comment (which implies agreement with your point and having also recently asked the question himself).
3 posts per week
4 posts per week
5 posts per week
6 posts per week
1 post per day
2 posts per day
3 posts per day
You will notice the significant difference between the options.
It's important so that users know at what point @double-u will start a campaign to stop them from doing what they are currently doing. Am I safe at self-upvoting 3 posts per day as your initial answer suggests? Or should I stop before that point?
I eagerly await your response now that I've taken the time to be far more pedantic in my reply which I apologise for not realising was a basic requirement in communicating with you.
Unsocial are the people who constantly have to dictate what you can do and what not, or constantly spread bad vibes! @double-u makes more for the community than a large part of the people here who only whine and cry about a few % Selfvotes. Thought we are beyond the point that selfvotes do not give a damn if the community is not completely ignored. But it seems that the same monkeys from Steem and Hive always come over when the course of Blurt looks good.
Be glad that @double-u votes here on Blurt in the Communty and believes in the community (still).
He could also say "fuck you friends, I'm going home!" and he sells his blurt at the current price. With the total proceeds, he could make a daily return of over $800 through Osmosis Pools.
If it's all about the money, blurt is not the best place to go!
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
PS:
And this from one who delegates his complete BP to voting services over and over again. That explains everything.
´´´
the-gorilla delegate 5,001.085 BP to tomoyan 2021/12/05 14:02:3314,665,338 | 9f81f06
the-gorilla undelegate to tomoyan 2021/12/05 13:14:4814,664,392 | b22a0d9
the-gorilla undelegate to upvu 2021/12/05 13:14:3614,664,388 | 504ac0c
the-gorilla delegate 40,041.597 BP to upvu 2021/11/23 22:21:0914,332,915 | 5cf5c2e
the-gorilla undelegate to upvu 2021/11/18 20:13:2714,187,998 | 9dd4d93
the-gorilla delegate 5,008.424 BP to tomoyan 2021/11/14 19:38:2714,073,556 | 81509d5
the-gorilla undelegate to tomoyan 2021/11/14 19:36:2714,073,516 | 9b0e32a
the-gorilla delegate 15,025.275 BP to upvu 2021/11/14 19:36:0014,073,507 | 4721046
the-gorilla delegate 5,008.425 BP to tomoyan 2021/11/14 19:35:3914,073,500 | 69958af
the-gorilla delegate 10,020.491 BP to tomoyan 2021/11/09 16:08:2113,927,455 | ad043c5
the-gorilla delegate 10,020.491 BP to upvu 2021/11/09 16:07:5113,927,445 | bc756dd
´´´
Yes! We finally have a winner!!!
I complained about UpVu when I first joined and put my investment on hold as a result. Then I delegate all of my Blurt to UpVu.
Am I being ironic, or just another hypocrite?
As everybody else has told me, it's my Blurt, and I can do what I want with it.
Oh hang on, no I can't.
In addition, your reply also highlights an additional bias that this "survey" will inherently attract.
When I first replied, I was the 1st to disagree with the banning of delegations. I had the balls to say something others believed but were too frightened to say through fear of people like you attacking them. A bit like the voting system in many autocratic countries.
If this is how the decision to end delegation is made, it's wrong. The process is wrong. And therefore the outcome will be wrong.
Very good points on bias and appealing to those you surround yourself with.
Honestly I have seen the chatter but I have not had time to take on a big part of this conversation, as I am not usually able to attend the pub and when I have time to be online I am trying to catch up with curation.
I need to try to do a post tonight before it is too late.
I have seen mention of the "Pub" quite a bit, but have no clue what this is. Can you enlighten me?
I am concerned that those of us that delegate properly will end up losing that portion of their HP. I am going to start un-delegating some of my smaller accounts so I save some before this goes down. It does seem to be heading down a path that is going to hurt people. As I un-delegate with the smaller accounts it will have less of an impact on my ongoing curation projects and protect myself.
Please hold off on un-delegating. This is someone who is very well respected in the blurt community bringing this motion and vote but members of the foundation still have not indicated they will be going any direction on this. I honestly do not think delegations are going anywhere. You will also not lose any funds that you have in delegation on the off chance that it does.
The pub is a sunday night activity lead by double-u that centers around a series of conversational topics. If you look under trending each week it will usually be near the top.
No need to panic yet. I also thought of you when talking about curation projects we all know and love that will be hurt. I did not want to use your name though as I did not know your stance on this particular issue.
Thanks for commenting and seeking clarification.
thanks. You are welcome to use my name.
If this gets messed too bad i will just cash in my "chips"... I do not have the time or energy, and if I miss something happening my accounts could get hurt.
I 100% echo this sentiment.
However, I've been reliably informed that megadrive is strongly against this proposal and that despite double-u's personal opinion, this "survey" holds absolutely no weight and no action will be taken. I shared your concerns and started powering down too in order to protect my investment. I've now cancelled this action and have confidence that the user who wrote this post is just starting a shit storm without consideration for the consequences.
Your post has been upvoted (24.20 %)
Delegate more BP for better support and daily BLURT reward 😉
Here
Thank you 🙂 @tomoyan
https://blurtblock.herokuapp.com/blurt/upvote
Thanks I will give you a heads up when I can.
Your post has been upvoted (21.73 %)
Delegate more BP for better support and daily BLURT reward 😉
Thank you 🙂 @tomoyan
https://blurtblock.herokuapp.com/blurt/upvote
Thanks as always.
Perhaps a better proposal would be to introduce a simpler rule to reflect the good that delegations are capable of. Simply...
You cannot receive upvotes from anybody you have delegated to
This can also be achieved in code.
Surely this solves the problem that you feel exists?
This will be a good step.
"You cannot receive upvotes from anybody you have delegated to"
It just seems totally logical to me!
@leifasaur
Delegation is an important part of the economy and the spread of rewards through the system if used correctly. And there are many important community curation projects that rely on it to grow and hold communities on blurt. There are whales that do not have time to vote but still would like to see their stake used, and they can funnel that into different communities through delegation.
Perhaps we can do more to push for people to do their own curation and show that it is much more profitable to do then using a vote buying service.
Bin dagegen und finde das ist leider sehr schlecht hier so zu machen, denn nun ist dafür gabz weit oben um dagegen zu Kommentieren muss man gabz weit Scrollen, wenn mans überhaupt findet. Das sollte man anders regeln.
Ich glaube das Delegation ein wichtiges Instrument ist und dadurch vieles hier möglich ist und viel Aktivität erzeugt. Klar hats hier und da Nachteile. Und wenn die Delegation ebtfertn wird, dann wird ein Unweg gefunden. Ist immer so.
Kann in den meisten Fällen durch simple voting trails ausgeglichen werden. Statt community accounts per delegation zu unterstützen wird deren vote halt mit x% des eigenen Votes gefolgt.
Dem würde ich nur zustimmen, wenn es keinenagebühr beim Voten gäbe. Aber so wäre das eben ein riesen unterschied.
Kannst ja mal ausrechnen was das kryptodenno dann zusätzlich kostet um nur ein Beispiel zu nennen. Sowas gibts ja noch viel öfters.
Dafür bekommt man aber auch die rewards aufs eigene Konto. Wer dann weniger rewards bekommt als die votes kosten hätte auch nix delegiert xD
Und im falle von verliehener bp in gewinnspielen wird halt ein vote verlost oder was auch immer. Da gibt es genug Möglichkeiten. Man muss immer sich vor Augen halten wie sich der upvu mist weiter entwickeln wird, wir haben den Blick in die Zukunft indem wir nur mal kurz bei Steem reinschauen und dort dominiert upvu alles. Wenn es andere Möglichkeiten gibt das zu stoppen dann wäre ich sofort dafür.
Nur auf steem schieben sich die wale ihre votes selber zu mittels upvu und die betreiber davon verdienen sich dumm und dämlich.
Aber ein Vote ist ja nicht das wie eine Delegation.
Ich habe z.B. als ich Anfing nicht gevotet, weils mir mehr gekostet hat. Habe dann Delegationen bekommen und konnte Voten. Das ist nicht das gleiche wie wenn ich einen Vote bekommen hätte und auch nicht wie wenn man mir folgen würde.
Aber du sagst ja schon selber die schieben es sich gegenseitig zu, dass können die dann auch ohne delegation. Genau so wie es nichts bringen würde Selbstvotes zu entfernen, dann macht man einen anderen Account und votet darüber.
Wie gesagt ich kenne das von unzäligen Seiten, die mal was versucht haben zu unterbinden und dann sachen einfach umgangen worden.
Wenn sich die nur gegenseitig voten würden, dann würde dieses Geschwür nicht groß weiter wachsen, nur ist es gerade schon bei 11,4 Millionen BP, also 11,4Millionen, die nur sich selbst voten und es wird weiter wachsen.
Und eine delegation hilft dir nicht weiter, wenn du wegen den Kosten nicht voten kannst, da fehlen Blurt und net BP. Es muss also erstmal der erste Post von anderen gevotet werden, die nicht alles in das Geschwür gepumpt haben.
Du brauchst aber doch nur zunächst gabz wenig damit du voten kannst und dann kommt ja schon durchs voten immer wieder was rein, was die Kosten deckt.
@joviansummer
@double-u
is there no other idea to stop the sale of votes in this blurt. if it's about removing delegates can you embrace all new people or newbies using the #iduvts tag?
people who use the #iduvts tag maybe only the @offgridlife account that gets a lot of votes even @instablurt will vote for him every day. I'm also surprised that the content of ordinary people who don't have a lot of BP gets so little attention from these big guys in BLURT. now you say you want to remove the delegate option. what about the people who build a community that only has 100k power even that is delegated by small people. but looking at all the posts of people on blurt who just joined and thrived here with their content not getting any big attention. I guess you double-u don't dare make any real rules in BLURT. by banning vote seller accounts or delegating BP to get votes. like @offgridlife used UPVU voice service and now he has agreed to remove the same delegate as you. most people in BLURT don't dare to speak because BP is lame even though BLURT was created for freedom of speech, please say anything here. even TEAM BLURT doesn't make DOWNVOTE option therefore people are free to do anything here and buy votes by delegating their BP to vote seller account.
As not a part of top 20 , writing my name here @kamranrkploy
@yayogerardo
Primary reason: Not enough discussion over this term has been made in a wide scale and removal of delegation would hurt the economy of blurt. Self righteous self voters will benifit the most but only for a short term and thus created a large downward spike in price. hurting everyone equally.
on that note I am not against the removal of bidbots. bidbots has already been proven to be harmful in steem where it was dirst implemented. removing this is a great step forward.
one more thing I want to add:
not enough users to be onboard with this consesus issue.
ok one more:
Removing delegation feature is at this moment impossible. not enough human recourses. need more devs. LOTS MORE DEVS.
///
This whole debate is good though. Its good to see where the minds are regarding this platform. but sadly I dont think many know the full landscape of the situation.
cheers
Ich bin definitiv auch gegen die komplette Abschaffung von Delegationen, fände eine Beschränkung aber eine gesunde Alternative. Diese könnte wegen mir auch drastisch sein - wegen mir max. 10 oder 20 % der eigenen BP.
LG @kryptodenno
This will destroy many community curation projects also, including mine. And even some larger ones that we all look up to. This was a way for the whales to spread wealth to other curators and down into the community. Not every whale has time to manually curate.
I think this approach is over kill you don't cut off an arm because of an infected finger.
You can always support by using voting trails.
To my knowledge Blurt does not have automated curation trails.
And I believe curation trails are part of the rot of HIVE, I think any sort of automated voting should not be allowed.
But delegations to manual curators are one of the economic back bones of BLURT and ways that votes get out to a wider number of unique users. Voting trail would just mean that the votes all just go to the same basic accounts of preferences.
And that is what is happening with delegating to services like upvu, its just a selfvote service.
Curation trails can be created it's not that hard and if ppl want to support a curation account they could follow their votes with 10%, it's almost the same as delegating 10% of their stake to the curation account.
Well said sir
No doubt those curation trail will only vote those in the trail.
Bitte schreibe unter diesen Kommentar deinen Account-Namen, wenn du für die Entfernung der Möglichkeit für Delegationen aus unserem Blurt-Code und für das Verbot von Vote-Kauf-Services stimmst.
Please write your account name below this comment if you vote to remove the option for delegations from our Blurt code and to ban vote-buying services.
@double-u
@reiseamateur
@tekraze
@ctime
▲@bluesniper
Hey blue sniper just noticed you’re one of the bigger investors in blurt do we know you?
🙌
It’s you ?
Certainly not. But I'm keeping an eye on these sorts of things... I'm glad you are as well!
Where in the world do you live btw? We should rly organise blurtopia someday I have ideas to make it rly fun
That sounds pretty alright Mag! But yeah. I live in Edmonton, Canada. 🇨🇦 How about you?
Any clues on who the elusive @bluesniper is?
Not who... but it is interesting (as always) to double check accounts Hive presence... especially if they are purchasing or unloading Blurt on Hive Engine. 👀
I wonder, too. Did you end up finding out? I want to ask them to stop sniping my posts with an immediate 25% upvote. It causes the @primeradue bot to only give 25% upvotes, so I end up missing out on 75% of that large bot's vote, every time. "Sniper" is a great name for this account!
🍀
Is there any way I could convince you to stop upvoting my posts? You're costing me a lot of money. Thanks.
Want to work together on a Curation Project? We need some Recruiters and Scrypt Writters and everything.
Hi @bluesniper, my Blurt proposal #24 is set to expire in 48 hours. I kindly ask you to withdraw your support for it as soon as possible. If you're interested in continuing your support, please consider my new proposal #31 for 2024 👉 Proposal 31: What can you expect for 2024 on Blurt?. Once again, thank you for your past support.
Quite agree. @bring.
@mariuszkarowski
@mmmmkkkk311
Hi, Dear honorable @mmmmkkkk311
I am a blurTian.
I invite you to visit my blogchain and encourage me.
Don't mind my matter please.
God bless you.
Click the following link to see that.
https://blurt.blog/blurtmob/@firdaus1998/living-together-any-where
please sir my post upvote,please
@northern-tracey
@dotwin1981
We can't remove the delegation feature, but we can ban some paid service bots, it will good solution.
@sonea-nakamaru
This account is impersonating someone else.
Please do not vote any posts
@gduran
@webstorm
@globetrottergcc
@amicablepeace
@lucylin
@tariqueshafique
@lichtblick
For sure reblurted ;-)
@steemibu351
@mamun123456
@harmonic
@dera123
@offgridlife …. At first I thought we needed the delegations to help some of the Curation Projects, but now I think if people really want to run a curation project they should just go buy 10 million Blurt on Ionomy and create their own Curation Project. Buy the Dips, Power up and Curate. https://exchange.ionomy.com/en/aff/f7862c1aeae8e0399176a908fcecbcfe
Going after everyone using delegations instead of focusing on those misusing them does not make sense to me.
@khrom I agree. with this idea. Without delegation, it will come to a situation that tokens will be generated only when the real user is active and evaluates some content, if he assigns the possibility of voting to someone else whom he trusts. This will encourage both activity on the platform and make voices more decentralized.
@kudfa I agree to ban vote buying service
@rituahlawat,I agree to ban vote- buying services
@bitandi
@elkezaksek
i think delegation is a great idea
i think vote trading and or selling is perfectly logical
just do what you want to do and let everyone else do what they want to do
It's an interesting point for a debate. I think we need to go deeper into the discussions
Upvoting through blurt power delegation is essential. What's wrong with taking your own money to buy a blurt and delegate it to get a higher upvote? Where do we get upvotes if we don't even have an upvoting ID? In conclusion, upvoting service through delegation of blurt power is absolutely necessary.
Lead by example.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @r2cornell-curate. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publication ha sido votado por @r2cornell-curate. También, encuéntranos en Discord
Does voting apply to common users or to only witnesses @double-u?
This post only for community votes, not witness
Then this will be a very long voting page.
It should be just witnesses, afterall they will be the ones making changes because of consensus.
There is a separate witness voting, but community opinion matters same as the witness
I got your point Sir thank you :)
@marya77
I support the delegation. Because if a user does not give the delegation then that user will not get the vote. Because those who have big users do not support ordinary users properly. There used to be a lot of curated IDs from which support was given. Now all curator IDs are off. Moreover, steem and hive delegation systems are in operation.
Leave your username as comment in the specific against vote comment on this post by double-u
Please is delegation to community account bad?
No not at all. And we need to get people to understand that positive delegation is very much a backbone of this economy. If that is removed rewards will drop sharply.
And increase for those who self-upvote 100% of their posts.
@nazirhussain
Yes sir you are right
I am saying this because
I am doing my best in blurt
I am an active user of blurt
I am posting every day in blurt but
Still i have not got any upvote from any big blogger because of delegation and selling votes
So i am against of delegation
Although, I have casted my username and want to restrict it but there is a point in mind; delegation should not be removed altogether wether it is vote trading services, but itshould be limited as 1k to 5k or under 10k etc, anything above it will be considered offence and then it will be allowable for blurt community to remove or ban. Its only my opinion.
@kolkamkwan
Maybe we could develop a balanced solution. For example, we could limit maximum amount of delegation to be 50% of one's own BP.
In an ideal world where there is no cost to maintain a server and electricity is free, you don't need any investment. If you want to remove delegation, at least you will need other methods to incentivize people to buy BLURT and power up.
If you look at the witness list, you can see plenty of witnesses who havn't produced a block for very long time. My guess is that they stopped witness nodes because they couldn't burn away their money and time any more.
In my opinion, getting rid of delegation altogether will eventually destabilize BLURT blockchain. You can't force node operators and witnesses to spend money and time indefinitely. There must be a method to boost and retain demand for BLURT.
I wrote about this problem a while ago. If anyone's interested, check the following link:
Is automated upvote service inherently bad?
Also, please check the following link and read the "Purpose of this project" section:
Introduction to @jsup curation project
Thank you for reading!
the whole point of crypto is that each person can spend their coins as they please
Hmm , naja , waren die auf dem #STEEM nicht schlau genug gewesen, damals mit der neuen RewaRdkUrve ?
Wie viele gibt es im #STEEM momentan ?
Als AnreiZmoment bitte nicht verachten , vielleicht lieber an der RewardKurve Rum basteln ???
The robots must be destroyed.
the whole point of crypto is that each person can spend their coins as they please
The humans must be destroyed.
I support the delegation system @realsort
Please comment with your user name under the comment to reject this proposal then.
Tweeted for #Blurt Platform promotion
the whole point of crypto is that each person can spend their coins as they please
each user should remember that you voted for witnesses, and you can take those votes away just as easily.
How do you do this?
It is better immediately to set stricter regulations on the part of the developer, otherwise the future of Blurt will be like Steemit, I mean only people who have a lot of money can use the platform in the way you said, isn't that right? bad and far deviated from the purpose of the platform?
As much as vote buying is bad and we all despise it, banning or cutting out delegation of all forms is not the right solution to curbing this. Community curation and support to newbies come from delegations. These kind of delegations do not hurt anybody or the blurt ecosystem. I have received some good upvotes from @leifasaur, a curator for the blurtafrica community and some curation from @bestkizito, a curator from the @r2cornell curator team. Cancelling delegations will cut off the resources of all these curators as far as I know and without proper curation, chances of retaining people on blurt will become pretty much zero. This will lead more people into wishing they could buy votes. Yes, vote buying is bad and will ruin blurt, but there has to be another solution besides cancelling delegations.
why is vote buying "bad" ?
seriously, everyone keeps saying this, but i don't understand why.
Well, the system is designed to reward people for the quality they add to BLURT. Vote buying defies this mindset because then even people with plagiarized posts can get 100s of dollars worth of vote with their plagiarized content. This will drag down quality and value of BLURT. This is a simple way to put it. I hope you get it?
what do you mean by "quality" ?
Quality content, my bad. Producing original and quality content on BLURT means that people can only find this content on BLURT and this will attract more people to BLURT. This is what the system is designed to reward.
for example,
what if, maybe, perhaps, someone, you know, somewhere, doesn't like the same things that you like ?
@sumon01
Your voting page is very long , your ideas is the better . I agree with your idealistic voting page . thank you.
I see delegations as a fixed deposit in the traditional bank system . When used in the right direction it brings huge development. But what I don't appreciate is someone posting things that are not of value and still gets good upvote all in the name of delegations doesn't not make sense.
The fact should be those who receive the delegations should encourage quality contents or get no upvote.
crypto means you can't control how other people spend their coins
you do what you want and let everyone else do what they want
You're correct. My opinion though
Personally, I don't agree with removing the delegation option. I found this post when searching why my account is not allowed to increase delegation. Everyone do not have enough time to go through a number of posts as curate. At the same time there should be a return for the investments too. So I see limiting the delegations will be a good idea. For example : you can delegate only 75% of the total blurt power etc.
yep
Hi @besticofinder, I'm strongly agree with you!
Very nice post
On another topic, do we have anything that can stop someone wealthy coming and buying this platform and adding a down vote button? Is there anything in place that can protect blurt
Hi, I think if someone would buy so much blurt that they could use it to vote for the top20 witnesses, it would be possible.
But I suspect that is unlikely.
Please, where do you live?
PS: If someone would buy so much Blurt, I would be very rich, because Blurt would be very expensive ;-)
Those people do exist tho. I seem to notice there are some people that get off on controlling and censoring others. To the point I actually wouldn’t put it past them to spend a billion on something, just to continue censorship as they want it and punish people for fun. It sounds weird to us but I do think those people exist. We don’t know anything behind these big profiles on other platforms they could even work for the government for all we know, the press or a big organisation. I just wondered if there was anything in place to protect blurt because right now it’s a tiny island in regards to be truly decentralised and censorship free.
100% THIS
Posted from https://blurtlatam.com
yeah I really wouldn't put it past them.
https://steemit.com/hive-167922/@tarazkp/the-ability-to-speak-freely-not-earn-freely#@tarazkp/q5nsfv
funny enough, this conversation took place shortly BEFORE the justin sun debacle
I don't even pay them attention I am taking all my money out eve if it's worthless right now and the currency tanked. I can't be bothered to wait to see if it goes up I just want nothing to do with the bunch of tyrants. My energy is 1000 times better from just ditching it completely in a blaze of fire haha They can all fight amongst themselves till their currency is worth 0, cause that is what will eventually happen. They can keep people there in fear for so long feeding bread crumbs but eventually if we focus on this place and making it amazing and vibrant then people will just jump ship.
good call
i've also dumped 99% of my hive tokens
but actually I would rather blurt just bought a whole new set of people in, there are billions of people in this world and millions of talented people.
welcome everyone and try to ignore the stuff you don't want to see
just like the rest of the internet