someone with 10 BP has the same vote as 10,000 BP?
This sounds pretty silly when reduced to two users, but I'm sure this approach is put into perspective by a larger set of users. But, to stay with the answer to your question: Yes.
Yes, because it reflects opinions, not "poor" or "rich".
I'll try to bring an example - also highly simplified:
Article A
This is a very good article, 99 users like it, it has 99 votes.
The users are all smart people, but they are poor. They all have only 10 VP.
--> 990
Article B
Only one person likes this article (maybe it's even a selfvote). This user is rich, VP 10,000.
--> 10.000
Today, a single rich user determines which article is the better one: Article B, although only one person (persons, not money, should have an opinion) likes it.
Now we first collect all VP in a pool. --> 10.990
At the end article A gets 99% (10.880) of it, article B 1% (110). Already article A is the better one, which represents the opinion of many.
The result would be the same, if the rich user votes for article A, a 10 VP user votes for article B. A is considered the better one by the majority of thinking users.
Of course, the CR of the users should be taken into account, which is especially important for the rich user. The CR are also calculated from the total pool. That is, the rich user gets 25% of the CR payout, even if he did not vote for the good article A. He has paid into the pool, so he should get his reward for it. The fact that article B simply doesn't deserve more because it's bad in the eyes of most users, even if the rich user has voted, is something the rich user no longer has to worry about.
This is my idea in a nutshell. Maybe a discussion can actually be built on this. I must confess, however, due to time constraints I can not participate very much in it. Constructiveness is important to me, we should not peck each other's eyes out in this debate. That's not worth the investor-blogger dilemma, we are all human. One is smarter, one is dumber, one is greedier, one is too altruistic, one is black, one is white... we need to find a common consensus, don't all have to love each other. But if quality is desired in this community, it must not be defined by poor or rich.
All of this is predicated upon one thing: 1 user = 1 account.
So, either design a chain where that is enforced, or design rules where that is not an assumption. Our experiment is based on the latter.
In real life, we do not (yet) demand everybody's full credentials before every interaction; we assume they do not possess a body-double. Here, we assume everybody does :-)
We had a lot of chats about this theme before on Blurt. I can remember even Jacob and Megadrive has been involved and there where plans already to solve the multiaccount problem.
But as it was said on conutless other places: We can't envolve Graphene very well. It seems, we have to wait for the development of a chain on Cosmos hub. It is fact that Graphene has no future because nobody knows the codebase very well.
But now is the time to talk about the layout of a better game on Cosmos. We should not stop to think about how it will work better.
I'm glad they are continuing with Blurt as they move forward with Splash. Due to intrusive government regulations, it appears that for those of us in the U.S. Splash will be (more of) a tax nightmare. Under the current system, our pull from the pool is 50% given to those we vote for. So we only get half that tax liability. Under the Splash model which will be modeled after Whaleshares, we will be responsible for 100% of the tax liability.
Thank you for not only being a catalyst for this post, but for weighing in. You are one of the accounts I look forward to seeing a post by. The combination of intellect and passion you possess and share leaves me grateful.
This right here. The whale that took joy in destroying accounts at the other chains had perhaps thousands of accounts.
Strange, isn't it?
1 user = 1 account. Yes. For voting, yes. Of course some people sometimes need more accounts (for example for different themes).
I think, it's all a matter of definition. People need rules, everything else is unsettling. We have known this at least since the Old Testament.
Besides I'm lazy now... ;-)
https://blurtter.com/blurtlife/@chriddi/qqx8ug
check out the Code of Hammurabi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
"People need rules". Like children. What better trap is there than to encode those rules? ;-)
Every set of rules will have some optimal behaviours, eg, you can be a crook if you're big enough to pay for the law to be friendly.
Once you add money, those optimal behaviours may change to maximise income. Then the game changes. Most people seem to expect the old game with the same rules - not happening. This is still a new science - and far harder than being a mere economist.
Thank you. I know the code - I am a teacher for mentally disabled children.
These children partly can't understand why it is shabby to cut off the very biggest piece of cake, because they are hungry after all and the needs of others don't interest them at that moment. So you have to support them directly with the action regulating.
Is it shabby to farm with 1000 accounts or the biggest stake? It is such a smart idea to make gold from straw very quickly - what do I care about the needs of others?... ;-)
... So you have to support them directly with the action regulating. About coding, great trap.
In the discussion about determination of codes, we must basically assume that not everyone has the same moral sense and the same cognitive prerequisites, which is why nothing at all will regulate itself all by itself.
Your cake example reminds me of a basic, yet interesting, optimisation problem.
How do you get 2 children to share fairly a cake?
As we know, people will look at the tiniest difference to get the larger share.
The solution is that you let one child cut the cake into two parts, then let the other child have first pick of their slice.
The solution is sooo simple... ;-)
However, it is (still?) a mystery to me how we can break this metaphor down to our core problem with many, many children. And the coding of it even more so! But in the end this is fortunately the task of competent mathematicians and computer scientists.
Exactly! The multi-person cake-cutting problem is, however, not so simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_cake-cutting
It is one of many algos I am looking at - thinking takes time tho ;-)
What the h...! Chapeau if you manage to tailor this insane challenge as an algorithm to our concerns!
Maybe step by step, trial and error? Rome was not created in one day... ;-)
Happy Easter,
warm regards,
Chriddi
Very good spoken @chriddi! That's the fact I always tried to say but didn't found the right expression.
Thank you very much.
I hope it's become clear that this is just a discussion starter, because of course in any system there are many ways to abuse it. And if the possibility exists, there are always exploiting users. But then it is a question of defining what exactly is meant by abuse. Only then can this be sanctioned (e.g. no rewards after warning - downvotes are not the right means in my eyes either).
Be that as it may, I am convinced that the 1-vote=1-vote approach is the right one, especially since everyone can see that it is not working the way it is now. Together, we have to discuss the pros and cons. And then we have to try out individual elements (not all at once, that can't go well). Then constantly evaluate them and, if necessary, rethink or develop them further. To reach a goal, you also have to take a step back to make the right turn at the fork in the road.
I am excited and happy to contribute whenever I can. What I don't want is to go through age-old discussions over and over again, only to see that nothing happens and old habits are retained without reflection. Because then we won't need a third, fourth, twentieth chain.