English: Please scroll down.
Top20 Witness-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!
Da Zeugen auch gleichzeitig Community-Mitglieder sind, könnt ihr in dem Community-Post auch abstimmen.
Bitte reblurtet diesen Post, damit möglichst alle User davon erfahren!
English
Top20 Witness 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!
Since witnesses are also community members, you can also vote in the community post.
Please reblurt this post so that as many users as possible know about it!
The witnesses had a discussion and most were against removing it. Removing delegations could be risky for the blockchain as well, every upgrade has risk, the foundation also does not have enough graphene devs (not many exist) to tackle this, development of current blockchain issues is slow enough as it is. I would rather see the issues that add to Blurt worked on first, rather than ones that take away features.
without delegations curation will be diminished, I remember a time when whales would not vote or just vote themselves and smaller users had no way to get enough vote power to compete.
Not having delegations means centralisation of vote power.
Please read my post I wrote on Steem many years ago, I alongside jamesc from Steemit was the ideator of delegations in a time when curation was not well distributed and people were not getting voted and leaving Steem.
https://steemit.com/money/@thecryptodrive/steemit-whales-stockpile-sp-government-spending-analogy-and-the-solution-revealed
A whale can always support a curation account by using a vote trail.
The problem is that upvu will hurt blurt. Take a look at trending and you will see a lot korean copy/paste posts. Give it more time and trending will look the same as steems trending.
exactly, we have a more preceding problem and that is fighting abuse. primarily spam and plagiarism.
PLG is however a problem, please shouldn't be rewarded for stealing content. We are open to public suggestions on how to deal with this.
Talking about dealing with spam can't the blurt developers create something like cheetah or perhaps we could have an anti PLG department to scout for plagiarized contents.
Another thing is that people don't post interesting things neither do they post quality contents and that also should be controlled
Best way to fight it is for everyone to grow bigger in Blurt Power and vote for other good content, DPoS was meant to be a battle of votes, with the biggest stake directing the content, this demand for Blurt Power is what makes the price go up.
If for example everyone gets a bigger stake that means that upvu also gets a bigger delegation and nothing changes. ppl delegating to upvu just want to squeeze the money out of the blockchain at least the big stakeholders. Watching upvu on steem is kind of a possible future for upvu on blurt and that vision is veeeery bad for us. Easy money attracts bigger stakes. If there is no way of stopping it then other big stakeholders who fought against it will surrender and use it too. The bigger upvu gets the harder it is to be stopped. Give it a bit more time and the account can vote for more than 2000blurt.
Hi, I believe we have slowed it down, we have blocked delegations to it at wallet level, which acts as user education. I had a brief idea, what if it was possible for witnesses to target a specific account with high fees for specific actions, like if the account votes for stolen and PLG content often we tax their voting more, increase the fees many times higher so they are burning more blurt and not worth it to curate such content, almost like a sin tax, just not sure how easy that is to implement. Maybe it shouldn't be witnesses, maybe it should be a set of sentries/admin that post a custom json and if 66% of them agree via custom json attestation then the fees increase will come into effect, maybe with a 30 day cooldown reducing back to normal.
Too mich staking can be detrimental too if hodled for too long as a community. It will cause the price to plummet due to demand of liquidity. on the otherhand, if timed correctly It can give a chance to onboard new people at a cheap price. The issue is how big of a shock it will create... risky risky. but are the gains worth it?
its nice to hodle the stake individually but sometimes we have to know when to power down accordingly.
Is it not possible to remove accounts such as upvu that do not have a source but support any kind of contents cause people pay for it.
Lets say blurt Africa is a community account and has an active community that needs support but upvu doesn't which gives opening to those people who plagiarize, so I will suggest they give upvu a limitation or something to make people avoid it
I agree. The end of delegation will kill curation and encourage self upvote.
I totally agree with you , also as i have said before we need to solve the problem not eliminate a feature.
Thank you
Yeah, with the centralisation of power small and new users may not grow.
We can see this from hive/steem as not all users get vote until they buy some power
Especially steem where they use rules and politics to upvote who they like and care less about quality contents
I want to present a point that 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. You can think about it!
I think that was not to be seen in this way.
And the current voting so far shows otherwise.
Recently, I had understood you in Discord to say that today you would no longer call for the implementation of delegations. Did I misunderstand that?
I'm not sure what you mean, but personally, I am against removing delegations.
Me too.
Already proven to be an inherently biased "vote" that will prove what you want it to prove due to the biased nature in which it was presented.
Let's have a vote on which is better, Burger King or McDonalds.
We all know that people who eat at McDonalds are drug addicts that hate foreigners and steal from old women. So let's vote and add your name below.
Put your name here if you prefer Burger King.
@the-gorilla
I prefer Burger King. 🍔 👑
I @no-cigar prefer Burger King.
Put your name here if you prefer McDonalds.
I prefer McDonalds.
You disgust me. What do you have against foreigners and old women???
Source
Huhh ????
I have nothing against old women or foreigners
No, delegations are creating centralisation of vote power and stealing curation rewards from delegators who don't know what they are doing. Look at upvu and others. Do you stand for this? Are you going to enable delegation marked on dlease? That's not a way to attract new investors. If you don't remove this feature which was created on steem by money hungry whales (after hf 18 they started bidbot businesses - I think you were one of them) this blockchain will be worse than steem
Stop the steal at least. Return all rewards from delegated power to Blurt Power owner (delegator)
It's important to also maintain free economy and enterprise, at the same time should we be telling people what to do with their stake? Do holders of BTC have rules about how they can spend it? We have to be careful we don't violate freedoms, however accounts voting on PLG content shouldn't be rewarded, i mean i don't mind so much if they vote for poor quality content, but stolen content is a problem.
We need to differentiate between the blockchain and the frontend, we can put controls on the frontend as that is not the part of Blurt that is decentralised, what gets displayed on the UI is very much in the hands of the operator and those that don't like it can spin up their own UI. The blockchain is 100% free and decentralised.
Who am I stealing from?
Did you delegate to upvu? Bot is stealing from you.
No, I don't delegate. I'm currently the recipient of two delegations. You say
So I'm asking you who I'm stealing from.
Can't you read. It is perfectly fine delegating. At the start of Blurt, founders, and probably Blurt itself delegated to some communities to help them grow, which helped Blurt grow. This continues by the same people today, albeit at a lower level of delegation. So are you saying that the founders were stealing? You make no sense what so ever.
I won't waste my time discussing the delegating for votes issue. That is in the process of being dealt with. It is a separate issue.
I just looked at your account and wallet. I get the feeling you are one of the left over Hive folks who is just stir things up. Looks like you had a difficult go of it on Hive with a -10 reputation, when you stopped posting there.
On steemit I found the following:
"Message to Hive users
ctime (40)in #dv • last year
My downvotes are not personal. I'm reducing by 20% upvotes from innerhive and curangel accounts. Check their downvote history and you will see why I'm doing it."
And, it looks like you were running a bot service on steemit: https://steemit.com/bot/@ctime/report-all-problems-with-upvote-bot-under-this-post
Looks like you were "loved there" for "stealing". At least now we know what you are made of.
I usually find that people who like to point out "flaws" of others are just projecting what is within themselves. The word flaws are in quotes because they are not real, only in you mind are they real.
I'm not talking about you. Don't you see that upvu is stealing curation rewards from delegators? Are you blind?
I do not deal with upvu
I do not deal with you. When devs switch curation rewards payout from delegatee to delegator, I will delegate some power to manual curators like you are
As this issue continues to be discussed I find it fascinating that many users do not differentiate between vote buying services via delegation, and proper use of delegating.
Recently I found someone who did her first post and not only demonstrated wonderful writing skills, but also her unique artistic ability. I believe the contact was initiated because she was asking me for clarification. Her subsequent posts were as great as her introduction, so i decided to delegate some Blurt to her. I no longer have use of it, but she does until I decide to take it back. There is no stealing here.
I try and keep my three curation accounts balance so if one has a lot more BP I delegate to another. Only one account gets to use the voting power. No stealing her as far as I can see. Centralizing power??????????? it is still part of the same curation project. Other than what I received when the initial hard-fork took place all the rest was earned or purchased.
I have users who work for me helping with curating, moderating in my community and curation report writing. I choose to delegate to some as part of their payment for their hard work, and it helps them grow on the Blurt blockchain. What I delegate to them is no longer available to me, but they have the opportunity to grow. Where is stealing involved?
Now I am not discussing vote-buying services for a reason.....I am doing this purposely to point out proper use of delegating. I believe in all I read some are confusing the two. They are two separate issues.
I'm not certain no delegations should be allowed. A small delegation from one kind soul kept me alive in my early days on steem.
I see that many of those who delegate most of their power to a vote buying service get large rewards on what is essentially spam, because no one reads it. Why should I support an account, no matter how good, that I have no hope of receiving support back from? So, I make it a practice to look at how much an account delegates before I upvote that account. Maybe more of us should simply do that. Other actions might be to limit how much of your power you can delegate (10%?), or to stop interest payments on delegated bp.
But in general, I feel there are already too many behavior modification measures in place; these measures can always be got around, and tend to hurt the smallest accounts. The upvote curve for example, which I believe is still active on blurt.
You are so right. Delegation is not a good tendency for any of us. But I made a mistake by delegating 50% of my bp to upvu. When I realized the fact, I have revoked all. Thanks Mr. Practicalthought who have encourage me most to revoke and work for other users.
Thank you.
In as much as I don't support the context of vote buying, I think some rules can be enacted to regulate that.
But in the case of delegation removal, it will not be favourable to a majority, especially accounts and community açcounts with little blurt power.
Delegation is a way of encouraging little accounts and communities with little accounts to also be able to add value to other's accounts. The whales here might not be able to cover up in voting some accounts that this little accounts will be able to cover. But if the delegations are been removed, so many açcounts will suffer it. So instead of removing delegation, let's work on not making it a law that users must delegate to a community before they become part of that community or before they receive support from that Community. This was exactly what brought about some of the issues coming up now on steemit.
This is my take though
Best regards
Bitte schreibe unter diesen Kommentar deinen Witness-Account-Namen, wenn du gegen meinen Vorschlag stimmst.
Please write your Witness account name below this comment if you vote against my proposal.
@kentzz001 - I'm not agreed with vote-selling (depends on the context), but not for removing the delegation function completely.
@imransoudagar
@megadrive, I hereby vote against, 5 witnesses is enough to prevent a consensus change.
@kamranrkploy , not in the favour of delegation service but removing delegation entirely is not the solution.
You are not a top20 witness!
@saboin
Ich habe lang überlegt ob ich dafür oder dagegen bin, die Sache ist ich bin gegen VOTE BUY Systems!! ganz klar auch wenn ich derzeit Tomoyan und DROIDA selbst unterstütze, aber ich sehe in diesen zb keine reinen UPVOTE Buy systems... im gegensatz zu UPVU die keine Eigenleistung erbringen und sich selbst nur mit der POWER der Anleger bereichert !
Das problem ist das wir gerade ein Schwarz und Weiss vergleich ansetzen und vergessen das es viel GRAU in der Mitte gibt , siehe zum Beispiel unser BLURT LIVE Account.... Ja wir geben den Anlegern was zurück aber wir SUPPORTEN einen Nischen Bereich der Chain und sorgen damit für BEWEGUNG. Des weiteren ist meine Stimme nichts wert da wir ja kein TOP 20 Witness sind mit Blurtlive und unsere Meinung keine Sau interessiert !
Das Dingen ist das ich die Gefahr solch GROSSER Einsteiger sehe das die power nur abgesaugt wird und am ende in SHITTY POST Versumpft wie es auf Steemit auch passierte ... Auf der anderen Seite sehe ich aber viele Communities sterben wenn man eben SUPPORT verweigert !
Das ist das Zünglein an der Waage wie gesagt es gibt kein REINES Schwarz und Weiss hier weil zu viel GRAU vorhanden ist !
Ja ich bin gegen VOTE BUY Systeme aber ich bin NICHT gegen Delegationen, ich gebe zum Beispiel Delegationen an die neuen User die ich auf die Chain bringe das könnte ich dann nicht mehr und somit Neuankömmlinge nicht Supporten, das ist etwas was komplett wegfällt...
Wie ist denn der Gedanken im Support von Neuankömmlingen ??? Ohne power können sie nichts machen, und wo soll also der Start herkommen soll zum Einstieg was gekauft werden soll das zum MUSS werden, und wer wird derjenige sein der die ganzen Neuaccounts erstellt und damit das Verkaufts recht der EINSTEIGER Pakete zu erhalten ???
Ich sehe zu viele Faktoren die hier kein JA oder NEIN als alleinstellungsmerkmal zulassen ....
Ich würde somit gegen es Stimmen wollen weil ich Delegationen als gutes Werkzeug sehe auch wenn ich komplett gegen Vote buy bin....
Bitte schreibe unter diesen Kommentar deinen Witness-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 Witness account name below this comment if you vote to remove the option for delegations from our Blurt code and to ban vote-buying services.
@tekraze
Not in favour of removing delegations but if it is only way to stop vote selling service then i vote for disabling it, until we find a solution.
Thanks
@gamer0815
@double-u
@techcoderx
@eastmael
I initially said that it should not be removed. But I’ve had a change of heart. I vote to have delegations removed until a better service or police becomes available.
They’ll find a way around this I believe. But let’s see where this takes us.
We can't remove the delegation feature.
@rituahlawat
You are not a Top20 witness!
Ohh, ok sir...sorry
@freakeao Immediately ban autovoting services, vote sales and the like.
What about my bot? Do you want to ban my bot too? I have never asked anyone for money or delegation
@blurthispano Eliminate services that may go against the integrity of the blockchain, vote buying, autovoting services.
What about my bot? Do you want to ban my bot too? I have never asked anyone for money or delegation
You really made a great point Sir by voting for for vote removal service. But on the contrary I would suggest for a fixed percentage, if any one wishes to buy votes and a violation of such should receive a serious down vote from the witness instead of bringing such rules that violates democratic rule although this is a partial decentralized social system.
☝️ I vote against 100% vote buying and a violation of such should receive a downvotes by the witness thanks.
Fortunately and unfortunately, there are no downvotes on Blurt. I am still of the opinion that there should be a better way to fix this. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
I only came here as there were no downvotes, I understand some may or may not like the opinions I write about, but they can scroll on by and not read them, that to me is better than malicious down votes based on opinion.
We need to go deeper into the discussions. It isn't a simple question
How would that be enforced on-chain though without downvotes, just putting the clause in the T&C does not stop vote sellers from running it with their own nodes.
We can block his account if he violates our terms and conditions.
The problem is the blockchain doesn't have terms and conditions, bitcoin doesn't, it doesn't say if you used bitcoin for these reasons then you will be blocked, we need to be careful not to erode freedoms at blockchain level. What you are proposing is making Blurt a permissioned blockchain like a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
But we can do that on the front end. If you violate the T&C of blurt.blog for instance. But then again with that power someone has to wield it and that makes an opportunity for corruption.
I think the above was being proposed at blockchain level, which is why I had to correct that.
Irgend wer hat das dann ja scheinbar vermisst und ich denke es würden soneinige das vermissen und das könnte vielleicht nach himten los gehen, wenn man das entfernt.
Statt es zu entfernen sollte vielleicht eher ein anreiz geschaffen werden selber zu voten?
Es gibt aber auch div User die mehrere Accounts haben und vom Hauptacount auf andere delegieren um unterschiedliches damit zu machen.
Soneine Frage sollte man doch eher der ganzen Community stellen und nicht nur ein paar Leuten. Schließlich vergeben diese ja ihre votes an diese und könnten dann ja sich für andere entscheiden die anders stimmen.
Es gibt einen seperaten Post für die Community.
Oh nicht gesehen 😳
kein Thema :)
I have reblurted it.
Very good step! All big guns should pay attention to it.
thank you sir @double-u.this is good step for everybody.
I think that we should find a way to generate a second layer token that won't allow delegation but will at a certain points fork from the current chain. Perhaps the opposite will work too. Blurt won't allow delegation but a second layer token on the chain can support this service.
no second layer token was helpfull so far all what happened was to split the people instead of bring em together !
People are already separated between those that have a lot of BP only used for vote service instead of manual curation and the rest try to keep the blockchain less automated or more interactive.
Do you think we are together right now?
The robots must be destroyed.
Creating 2 proposals would be best to see how stake vote for removal.
Just one word for all !
take a lot of lessons from steem, because of the delegation and buying and selling upvotes, all the small fish run away.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @dsc-r2cornell. You can use the tag #R2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @ dsc-r2cornell. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
Well at this stage I must say personally I'm really confused now.
I joined both steem and blurt this year although I joined the former before the later and I saw the platform as divided into two groups. First group are those that just write and engage in the communities to earn upvotes and curation rewards and the Second group are those that invest their money to gain power which is then delegated to communities and bots to get upvotes and rewards.
Either way it just works with everyone joining the group that best suits them
As a student with little money to spare I had to join the first group of writers and started earning vi's Proof-of-Brain in Crypto Academy.
But when I joined blurt I wanted my BP to grow quickly because after some months on blurt several friends and colleagues of mine in school started joining blurt and with only 25k BP I can't really give much upvotes so I delegated to upvu thinking twill help me grow my BP faster if I engage both writing and communities activities with buying from bots (upvu and tomoyan)
But honestly for the past few weeks the arguments on delegating to bots is really getting confused and I now feel guilty over it but yet i didn't delegate for reasons void of community building too.
I'm in a number of WhatsApp and discord groups of new blurt communities and I've brought friends to blurt too.
What I'm trying to say in essence is can we be more realistic in this discussion than trying to make everyone delegating to bots look like some greedy and selfish fellow that's only interested in money making cos I don't think it's true.
If delegating to bots is killing blurt, I just want to know how and I'm revoking ALL Delegations right away. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this dilemma so I need a good reply
Thanks
I tried the Upvu delegation for a few days with 200,000 Blurt power… I learned that I actually earn much more just upvoting 10 posts with good original content each day. So I undelegated the following week.
I am not against delegation completely
Because there are so many people who support the new blurt users by delegating some BP
Such as @kryptodenno
He is giving his BP to the users and he is not asking for any benefit from their earnings.
He doesn't askanyone even upvote his post.
One more thing there are so many people who make contests and They deligate their BP to the winners.
And there are so many people who upvote many people and they do not request any benefit if they will get BP it will be useful for users .
they are @ctime @nrg @droida
I am against the delegation gainers who gets BP and upvote only their every post, good post and useless posts too .
I also delegated
But now i have revoked it
I have posted this on my blog
Here is link
https://blurt.blog/r2cornell/@tariqueshafique/my-thought-about-delegation
Hi agree with you on this, but not totally. I think instead if removing a feature, it is best to restructure it in a way that will favourable to one and all, and this is where regulation comes into play. It is very frustrating when after someone takes his or time to write a quality content, and then in the end gets very little vote. It is really discouraging, and this is due to the fact that voting of contents is done only on accounts that have delegated power to bots. I've seen this a lot in Hive, and it makes one sad. There is no encouragement at all.
But here's the thing, in the other hand, delegation also helps communities to have more voting power to curate those who write quality contents. Removing this delegation feature will make it difficult for growing communities to have enough voting power to support their members. And in turn, this might even lead to self vote.
My own suggestion is that, instead of removing the delegation feature, it should be regulated. I have seen already that something has been to the upvu bot account and users can no longer delegate to the account. This is an example of the regulation we are talking about. You can't because of a single bot remove great features. With this control in place, Blurt will indeed be more amazing and great. I really loved reading all the comments in this post, and this is my own contribution. Thank you.