Below, is a screen shot.
An email to myself, telling people of blurt how things will transpire - if I'm correct.
...And more importantly - WHY. ....The psychologies , personalities, and 'stuff', behind the action....
It's for 'date and time stamp' purposes.
If I'm incorrect, it will never be published. ....(Well , maybe not true- I might well publish it to take the piss out of myself - and my own stupidity.)*
*not intellectually insecure.
I think it will be published however - at some point in coming weeks, or months.....
To @practicalthought and the reason self upvoting is not a property issue, but a 'disruption of the free market' issue.
A pretty self explanatory diagram.
Things to note :
The result of free markets, (free exchange) - both of the houses grow by selling produce (posts )...resources are freely exchanged. (upvotes in this case).
The size of the house (account size), is not related to the produce.
The size of the house only 'grows' after the free market mechanism has been executed. (Free exchange , and reallocation of wealth).
The 'self voting' model.
Property right does not mean you have the right (self voting) to grow your own house - simply because you have your own house. (account)
Property rights are pretty absolute.
Self growth from not producing anything that a consumer wants will, eventually, result in the collapse of an economy.....
(if everyone decided to 'grow the size of their own house' - simply because they feel entitled to do so - everything stagnates and decays)
Property rights do not entitle you to anything - except your own property.
Property rights do not entitle you to grow your property without producing something first, that then adds to your wealth.(labor first, in free exchange with others , thus leading to the increased size of house/assets).
Property rights do not entitle you to pay your self for you own produce , to enable you to grow your own house.
That is a financial manipulations of money/currency.
Not free markets, which rely on supply, demand and price discovery.
Self up voting disrupts all the above three elements.
It distorts the reality of free markets.
It is taking advantage of - i.e gaming the system - i.e - self upvotes being allowed.
Allowed self upvoting is system that is that place _ to benefit the self - without any requirement of merit (labor and marketable good).
That is not a free market economy in dynamic action - that is financial grift. (grift being 'the allocation of unearned money' in this context.)
That is not a sustainable economic model...
Why?
....because at some point in the future - self upvoting on a large enough account will enable rewards to be self sustainable (until the ecosystem inevitable collapses).
It is not dependent on ANY free market forces.
The model above, of a large enough account - cares not about supply/demand/...or even community consensus.
It relies solely on trust .
Trust that actors with big enough accounts do not act in their own interests. (this is antithetical to ALL free market principles).
For example - take my account.
If I build it up to a degree where I can make , say $8 a day by upvoting myself - I could do just that.
No work, no posting, no interacting - just reap the rewards.
(now, multiply that by the human imperative of self interest..sustainable? lol.....)
To think that self upvoting is in align with property rights, is to think that property rights are a source of self perpetuating wealth for no other reason that you owning the property.
I can think of no example where this is the case - outside of financial products.
(financial products are not an economy, they're a grift to - ..i.e income of other peoples labor).
I thought the whole ethos - and point - of crypto was 'the freedom pass', to avoid the old financial vampirism.
It was never intended to just be a clone of it ....or was it....??
A 'Out with the old dictators, and in with the new..' , scenario ?
Silly me.
If you're a vehement defender of this right, you must be - on principle - a vehement defender of there being no 'power down time' ?...it is_your property, is it not ?....to do with as you wish, when you wish ?....
" Ah, but you entered into the contract fully aware of the time and mechanisms of power downs "
....is not a rebuttal of the principle that unearned wealth (self upvoting) is in anyway ethical - It's not - it's grift.
....Nor is it a rebuttal of the principle of property ownership and rights - which is what we're talking about.
( that argument above is merely defending the mechanics that are in place ).
So I agree with @practicalthought on the principle of property rights.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS EVER BEING ABLE TO BE USED, TO DISRUPT THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS .
Self upvoting does this.
...if your property rights infringe on the - supply/demand/price discovery - you get controlled markets, no true price discovery, and the enabling of grift and corruption - where merit and hard work come to mean nothing.
....that's shades of socialism/communism.
If property rights are enabled in such a way as to self perpetuate wealth without external input (as is the current system with upvoting) - the law (code), is based NOT on property rights or the free markets - but oligarchic control.
Short term success for the selected few - Yes.
The takers will take from the givers, until the parasite destroys it's host.
It's a guaranteed economic collapse in the medium long term, all things staying the same.
(see all the socialist systems of governance and their economics as an example)
Kinda like finding the secret to a 'perpetual energy machine'... right? lolol...
If anyone tells me '...but it's different this time' - fuck off !....
Reality never changes....
If a systems and laws (code), allows for self perpetrating wealth (free energy everyone! It's a miracle , I tell ya's !)... it also encourages all the elements that destroys growth, based on merit and value.
Bear this in mind....
Apart from the select few who take advantage of the 'no work ethic' (because , muh, entitlement ).....It will - ultimately...and very ironically
.... Destroy the value of your property !!!
.....on the upside - it means any property right arguments or discussions supporting self upvoting, will become a totally moot issue anyway.
The free market dynamics and it's principles ?
They will still remain, unchanged, as they've always done....
And now I'm finished....
I've said all that I'm gonna to say on blurt - about blurt.....
Or on any account holders, or on any psychological weaklings - or on anything else in this area that I'm much, much, too stupid to weight in on...
....in fact ! (lol)
......If blurt ever want to stick 100k into my account for future advice services, let me know..... lol (and penguins can fly, I tell ya's )........
You need help - and I'm as cheap as it gets.....and that price is a fucking bargain
....No more free advice....
(sighs of relief from the Blurt powers that be, with the possible exception of saboin and rycharde - not tagging , not looking for an upvote - but they have my respect.)...
And if I've missed anything ?.... I don't really give a shit at this point...
...oh, one last word....
your front landing page is fucking shite - as in utterly abysmal.
An absolute 'abortion' , in marketing terms
No more 'trying to help' from a sense of wanting to help blurt grow - you know, for the 'free speech platform' it purports to be.
.......the fantastic platform it could be, if it wasn't for those scared people determined to hold it back...
I'm done.
Over.
...Bye
...Now......back to @lucylin - and the escapades of the jolly penguin.
So front end owners are the wardens keeping the gates to the blockdhain ?
What happened with decentralized ,.. free market working ? Like when you sell crap no one will buy it ?
Well , what ever ,.. so many options to make free coin on Blurt ,.. post crap by the hour and just upvote yourself in to oblivion . It's the set up system allowing it , no one will vote or engage with you , but he',.. your getting the coin's .
I wonder how many accounts operate like that on Blurt ?
On the other hand , being a bit rude and honest in your post's and comments could end you up on a coal list ,. drastically removing the possibility to earn some rewards .
It ain't no use , ..... .......... ... .... ......... ! waste of energy , just better enjoy the ride . ;-)
The front end owners would have to be, as they are the origin of where the responsibility will fall too in the end in maintaining abuse down.
Either way, we all are sharing the same plot of land for our open bazaars and that land is like a neighborhood and who wants to live in the ghetto? much less do business there?
Your whole comment is screaming ,.. we need governance , .. we need policing ,.. we need control !
Without it our planet will turn in to a ghetto if we don't have a over-watching controlling power .
This is how dictatorships come to life ,.. and grow like cancer ,.. creating fucking ghetto's everywhere .
And yes , i rather deal with the common folks in the ghetto's then deal with the snob's on the hill .
But i get it ,... you go for profit and suck your way up the hill kicking down like all the others do .
Your not very original ,... just like the name on this platform ,.. Blurt ,.. like did anyone check that for plagiarism ? ,.. The name Blurt kept me away from this site for long ,.. as to me it means censoring yourself or others . Besides that it ain't original at all ,.. i am still waiting for this band to sue MD for steeling there name , ;-)
“ Your whole comment is screaming ,.. we need governance , .. we need policing ,.. we need control !
Without it our planet will turn in to a ghetto if we don't have a over-watching controlling power .“
I gotta agree 💯
Your bar is low.
Huh?
.....you don't need to understand basic economic principles if you're really clever...
Wow.
Today I just a reality slap haha xD
....I DINT DO NUFFIN' !
I don't think any iterations of crypto social media have got to any of the utopian ideals they purport to uphold. You gotta love the dream, but folk be folk.
I agree landing page, tag system etc and a heap of other things on Blurt need fixing. Hive is way ahead in that regard but I don't want to start a comment flood about Hive this blurt that... Yawn.
After all if anyone don't like one blockchain he/she can move to another one, or create a fork. I always liked the idea of the fork. So, anyone is able to hire developers and fork the blockchain or the project because it's all open source, what people may don't understand. I hope more will learn about what's an open source.
Yup, agreed.
People work with incentive and self interest - and no one knows the heart -or motivations-of another....the best we can do it mitigate potential harmful behaviors to any free market economics.
.....financial gaming of the system- and no work required, to receive 'money' is not one of those incentives. ...that's socialism.
socialism? more like gangsterism.
Anyway, the problem is quite simple. The naive assumption is that financial incentives guide social interactions. In reality, those incentives have been designed to be far too simple and lead to financial success through antisocial behaviour - the opposite of what was intended. Lots of research on algorithms that screw up.
The solution is... nobody knows yet, coz nobody has tried.
This kinda works in defi coz every txn is financial - no pretence of being social - they are maths/money games. Crypto socmedia are also maths/money games except... they are not supposed to be! oh well... where's that drawing board?
And to those who love a good fork... forking a zero-value token is easy - the work comes in paying the money-grabbers of exchanges, having a dev team etc etc.
....there's a difference ?
If you're a lefty - the problem is exquisitely simple - but wont work, because no one's really a socialist, and algorithms destroys the mask of 'the altruist' pretty quickly, reavelaing power ambitions behind the rhetoric.
If you'r a lassez faire extremist (not a banking neocon) - the problem is also quite simple too....but the block chain isn't ready for that solution.....as it would destroy the fundamental 'raison D'tere' of the block chain - in it's current form.
I'm all frenched out now...Sacrebleu !...ok.....NOW... I'm all frenched out...
trying to control what others do with there own value is socialism. I’m a minnow here so this wouldn’t effect me personally nor would I choose to upvote posts massive amounts of value, as many people would not support me and they’d the only way this can be dealt with in a decentralized way. People can choose not to support people who upvote themselves many dollars of value. This would become more centralized then anything via Hive/Steemit if these kind of actions happen.
“ So I agree with @practicalthought on the principle of property rights.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS EVER BEING ABLE TO BE USED, TO DISRUPT THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS .
Self upvoting does this.
...if your property rights infringe on the - supply/demand/price discovery - you get controlled markets, no true price discovery, and the enabling of grift and corruption - where merit and hard work come to mean nothing.
....that's shades of socialism/communism.
If property rights are enabled in such a way as to self perpetuate wealth without external input (as is the current system with upvoting) - the law (code), is based NOT on property rights or the free markets - but oligarchic control.“
I couldn’t disagree more. You own ur stake. I’m a smaller account here also so self upvoting a bunch of value isn’t an option personally at this point and I assume if I bought 100K of blurt and powered up and upvoted sll my posts, many accounts would skip upvoting mu content where otherwise they would. This is the only solution. I’m telling u guys if u start to forbid how people use there own stake which they are risking powering up, it will screw this place as it will be first of many limits on ur own stake. It’s a story we’ve seen b4.
Upvoting with ur own value isn’t communism at all.
And the part about it being fine for witnesses? This makes no sense to me. We’d be more centralized then hive and steemit going this road.
The idea your own risked stake which is certainly at risk of loosing value massively is not yours but part of a pool is the way to look at it is the communist vibe.
I respect all opinions 🙌
No disrespect meant at all. Cheers 2 u 🍻
I just couldn’t disagree more then I do. We’d be more centralized then Steemit & Hive combined going this way.
I frankly would leave even though I wouldn’t benefit at all given I’m nowhere close to a whale. But I’m getting early steemit drama vibes with this kinda idea anyone risking huge stake isn’t in control of there own votes.
The bizarre thing of coding and Internet is that it creates functions impossible to do in real material life. Once the buttons are there, people use them.
right. I think that is what man is often after. He wants to find this machine where you have a "passive income", like forever (meaning the rest of ones live). If not through having others working for you (which everyone constantly does, make no mistake, even for me and you) then through codes.
All those people, you never meet, never talk to, never see, smell and touch, they all work for us. We are in the same way parasites to others as others appear to us.
There is no escape, no solution, no rights, no agreements I can have between the many and me myself. I can only agree in the twosome scenario between you and me. The is no other market for me, only the temporary situation I walk into.
I think you have beautifully described the absurdity you perceive and finally put advertising in its place.
@saboin I am curious over this, so I ask can self voting be removed at root level?
It can, but it would be pointless since users could just move their stake to alts and “self-vote” that way.
A Gordian knot - that's also a noose !
I have strong feeling that this seemingly unsolvable conundrum will come to haunt...many things.
It will - it has already. Is a deep flaw.
Put in different words, it means voting becomes vote-mining, with potentially zero content-voting. This would not be so bad if the site wasn't supposed to be a content-centred platform.
The flaw is that such vote-mining does nothing to improve the content-voting.
One solution, that Hive has done, is to pay a huge 20% APR for buying HBD and doing nothing, compared to a lamer 8-10% curation rewards. Thus, profits from stake are higher than voting and they don't interfere with content. (in theory, I'm not going down the DV route, I'm just assuming a similar system transported into Blurt - which was discussed many months ago before Hive ever thought of it ;-) )\
I imagined a blockchain blogging platform without any monetary value, ie no vote rewards at all. except for staking for the tokens liquidity on exchanges. Thus we would need many use cases ready to go at launch. Alot of work but feasible. Then, this way people can just donate liquid tokens directly to the users if the choose.
or...
Can a blogging graphene chain without the need of a token be created?
What would be the purpose without a token?
One can even keep the token as a measure of "likes" but not have the token exist anywhere else would give it zero value.
I still see the fundamental problem is that the chain is designed to do 2 things, but the simplicity (naivety) of the algos means the 2 things do not support each other, instead they interfere with each other. But that is the nature of every POS - stake is more important than any other function.
I had a proposal some months back about separating the investors and bloggers by splitting the reward pool into two. A user could thus use their BP either to vote on posts or to yield passive income - the two pools would be dynamic, so wouldn't end up with all BP in one pool.
I could look at this again if the idea seems attractive.
This would respectfully be pointless
Saboin pointed that out, however it was just curiosity.
You reminded me of a store called SunLight in Russia, They always promote it everywhere that they are leaving the market and they have sales. And we always make fun of that store because they are leaving the market for 8 years for now. lol
I never said I was leaving - anywhere - so how does that compare to looking at a shop in Russia ?
ohhhhhhh - is this mocking, somehow ? (not a very good attempt - best use a element of reality and truth in it, it works much better..)