To hear that is wonderful! Thank you very much!
Edit:
Dear @megadrive,
it is at this opportunity also possible to change the following for voting?
In my opinion it should make no difference if a user votes on a post after 1 second or after 6 days.
It should also be completely irrelevant, which possibly strong votes are still given after the vote of the user on the post.
I find all this unnecessary complications, which do not fulfill their original purpose anymore.
I would like to have removed all such nonsensical complications.
This also makes things easier for new users.
Thanks for your attention and best regards, @double-u
PS: I like BLURT very much!
Hi @double-u, thank you for the message. I am glad you like Blurt, I am honoured that you like it in fact, I appreciate positive feedback, lets us know we are on the right track. Are you referring to where users who vote first have a frontrunning advantage is that correct? Or are you referring to the 5 minute vote window, where if you vote in the first 5 mins the authors gets some of your curation?
Dear @megadrive,
Thank you for your kind answer and question!
Both.
The user who votes first should not have an advantage. He should not have more rewards just because strong votes are added later.
Author and curation rewards should only be calculated from this:
Nothing else should influence the amount of the rewards.
To the 5 minute window:
I don't know what it should be good for.
I would also like to get rid of it.
When communication takes place via comments, it would be nice if you could vote immediately as a signal that you have read the comment, without reducing your own curation rewards. This was the case on Steemit a very long time ago.
If there are no good reasons for the 5 minute window, I would also like to eliminate it.
I agree and make an additional proposal for @jacobgadikian and @megadrive. After the 7 day's payout period let the people they have not voted before, give their votes forever. And initiate payout every month or year, as you like. To stop the voting period has been a big mistake since beginning of the Steem. Yes, it saves performance of the blockchain engine. But it also prevents content from performance. Bloggers will love you for this significant step.
@afrog there is an attack vector there to that proposal, so a rewards farmer could keep creating new accounts and delegating his stake to them and then voting the same content, it would reduce the need to post fresh content and the chain would stagnate with old content. It would also endanger the namespace, causing all the good names to be taken up, so new users won't have a great name selection. We would have to make new accounts really expensive to create, like really expensive. tagged @double-u and @michelangelo3
Hi @megadrive,
Oh yes, this is really an important reason not to allow the possibility for voting for a long time.
Thanks for this logical argument!
Thank you for the argument and I have thought about it, dear @megadrive. You speak in Attac categories and I think the whole thing from the blogger's side. The only possible interpretation of your argument is that the only cause of my problem is reward farmers. Because they have existed since the beginning of the Steem, the blogger's gold will be devalued after seven days. Sorry, but that sounds like surrendering to the cause.
There is no surrender here, just that this idea could really lead to mass farming, worse than we ever seen and even less posts because people will just shuffle their stake and vote their old posts.
There needs to be a bit more thought put into it, to still allow it but not let it be gamed, one way would be to remove the delegation feature, but then that harms curation initiatives.
I thought about farmers since four years and a lot. It seems this is the keyproblem of DPOS. Because the acting of farmers is near by the acting of bloggers. There is no algorithm to catch them and all other trials, like statistics, downvotes or blacklists maintained by curators are poison for communities. There is no perfect medicine but one day one brain will have the genious solution. Provided we don't stop discussing the subject.
Ich hoffe, ich komme bald mal mit Muse zum Schreiben.
Ich finde nämlich, dass ich schon längere Zeit ein Gesamtkonzept habe.
Das aufzuschreiben, erfordert aber etwas Arbeit; gerade wenn es auch noch im Englischen zu verstehen sein soll.
Ich habe mit meiner privaten Arbeit, die sich jährlich immer wiederholt, noch nicht mal angefangen. Morgen aber ...
Ah I think the 5 minute window was created to create a level playing field for organic users, otherwise bots could snipe the second the post was created and frontrun real people, if we deprecate the frontrunning advantage the 5 min window would have less use.
There is one small advantage to the 5 minute window that was highlighted to me, have you considered that currently it helps deter self voting? So you have to wait 5 mins before self-voting, so it takes away the instant gratification and perhaps encourages the user to vote other content instead, also some self voters don't realise that if you vote too early it sends the rewards back to the rewards pool, so the unwittingly don't benefit from the full self-vote and curbs some of the extraction of rewards from self-voting by users that don't fully know the rules.
Hi @megadrive,
whether the 5 minute window remains or not is not so important to me.
I think it is important, that we deprecate the frontrunning advantage!
Author and curation rewards should only be calculated from this:
Nothing else should influence the amount of the rewards.