Hello all.
Witnesses, minnows, bots and whales.
After the tossy turvy crapstorm that was the bellyrub incident change needed to happen.
I give you the Oracles Witness Board.
A place where witnesses and non witnesses alike can discuss current witnesses and vet new upcoming witnesses.
But wait.
What's a witness?
https://steemit.com/steemit-guides/@pfunk/a-full-steemit-user-s-guide-to-steem-witnesses
This will be the first in a series of posts called Witness Question Of The Week.
I will tag all one hundred witnesses and see if they'll publically answer my question. I will track them on this post. And show YOU where they answered so you can see who you should or should not be voting for.
First WQOTW.
You ready?
Should cumulative voter vest totals (the current way) determine witness rank or simply voter count?
Witness Tracker.
Rank Witnesses They answer?
1 @jesta jesta X
2 @timcliff timcliff X
3 @gtg gtg X
4 @roelandp roelandp X
5 @blocktrades blocktrades X
6 @good-karma good-karma X
7 @someguy123 someguy123 X
8 @smooth.witness smooth.witness X
9 @aggroed aggroed X
10 @anyx anyx X
11 @clayop clayop X
12 @furion furion X
13 @xeldal xeldal X
14 @ausbitbank ausbitbank X
15 @pfunk pfunk X
16 @riverhead riverhead X
17 @thecryptodrive thecryptodrive X
18 @pharesim pharesim X
19 @busy.witness busy.witness X
20 @lukestokes.mhth lukestokes.mhth X
21 @netuoso netuoso X
22 @liondani liondani X
23 @wackou wackou X
24 @jerrybanfield jerrybanfield X
25 @bhuz bhuz X
26 @curie curie X
27 @cervantes cervantes X
28 @followbtcnews followbtcnews X
29 @klye klye X
30 @drakos drakos X
31 @abit abit X
32 @fyrst-witness fyrst-witness X
33 @teamsteem teamsteem X
34 @ihashfury ihashfury X
35 @utopian-io utopian-io X
36 @aizensou aizensou X
37 @charlieshrem charlieshrem X
38 @boatymcboatface boatymcboatface X
39 @jospeh joseph X
40 @themarkymark themarkymark X
41 @witness.svk witness.svk X
42 @chainsquad.com chainsquad.com X
43 @steempty steempty X
44 @steened steemed X
45 @blueorgy blueorgy X
46 @delegate.lafona delegate.lafona X
47 @roadscape roadscape X
48 @theprophet0 theprophet0 X
49 @neoxian neoxian X
50 @complexring complexring X
51 @bitcoiner bitcoiner X
52 @chitty chitty X
53 @krnel krnel X
54 @steemychicken1 steemychicken1 X
55 @arhag arhag X
56 @nextgencrypto nextgencrypto X
57 @arcange arcange X
58 @datasecuritynode datasecuritynode X
59 @steemgigs steemgigs X
60 @agoric.systems agoric.systems X
61 @patrice patrice X
62 @au1nethyb1 au1nethyb1 X
63 @dragosroua dragosroua X
64 @blockchained blockchained X
65 @bacchist bacchist X
66 @reggaemuffin reggaemuffin X
67 @liberosist liberosist X
68 @steem-id steem-id X
69 @cyrano.witness cyrano.witness X
70 @viva.witness viva.witness X
71 @ats-witness ats-witness X
72 @adsactly-witness adsactly-witness X
73 @kushed kushed X
74 @yabapmatt yabapmatt X
75 @rival rival X
76 @inventor16 inventor16 X
77 @felixxx felixxx X
78 @suggeelson suggeelson X
79 @prc prc X
80 @masteryoda masteryoda X
81 @sc-steemit sc-steemit X
82 @bue bue X
83 @fubar-bdhr fubar-bdhr X
84 @tdv.witness tdv.witness X
85 @bitrocker2020 bitrocker2020 X
86 @bayareacoins bayareacoins X
87 @jatinhota jatinhota X
88 @team.alpha team.alpha X
89 @demotruk demotruk X
90 @swelker101 swelker101 X
91 @steemitboard steemitboard X
92 @sircork sircork X
93 @blockbrothers blockbrothers X
94 @yehey yehey X
95 @rcarter.witness rcarter.witness X
96 @silversteem silversteem X
97 @ura-soul ura-soul X
98 @picokernel picokernel X
99 @jamzed jamzed X
100 @stuwhisson stuwhisson X
Witnesses you can answer here. Over discord DMs with me if you allow me to screenshot or actually in the discord for witness board at anytime as long as you tag me so I can read your response.
https://discord.gg/ecM5Kzd
OR.
You can come this Saturday in my weekly discord show. And answer live in front of the dozens and dozens of swolesomes swolies.
UTC 1600 - UTC 1800
UTC 4pm - 6pm
EST 11am - 1pm
CST 10am - 12pm
MST 9am - 11am
PST 8am - 10am
On Saturdays.
Visit the discord
https://discord.gg/zkTeKeS
Then enter the #steemstar-audience channel to join the show's text chat room
A place where the audience gets to have the mic.
In a giant game of hot potato.
On Hot Potato Radio!
Vests is the obvious answer. Total votes is meaningless.
That being said you won’t get many witnesses coming here to play trivia. It doesn’t mean they are not good witnesses though.
If picking a witness comes down to if they answer trivia questions, then you have very poor criteria for witness selection.
A witness should represent your values and support causes you believe in and be ethical and transparent. Being technical savvy is a huge plus and really should be considered a requirement.
Of course, if they are not forthcoming or you have to go chase down their opinions, or they're duplicitous – then their interest in connecting with the community in a single place where people have come together to ask them questions and their interest in maintaining those public connections certainly plays into the community's judgment.
After all, how will we know if a witness represents our values and support causes that we believe in the if we don't ask? I think that a place where those kinds of questions can be asked and answered is probably a good addition to the community.
It also provides an opportunity for the duplicitous to lie to our faces, which vastly increases the chance of finding out if they're being deceitful elsewhere. Hopefully, long before they walk off with a number of people's big pile of STEEM. From a security perspective, the more interactions with the community at large that a witness has, the more chances there are to find out what they really think.
When a witness believes that interacting with the community is an irritation and a burden, that too is information that we may not have known before.
Just a few thoughts.
you took the words right outta my mouth and made it sound ten times better, nicely stated ......just my itty bitty two pesos
I think I love you @lextenebris, even if i did have to look back 3x to spell your name right. ;)
The problem I have I this:
This is setting the stage that witness selection is based on if they respond to a random question.
Engagement is a huge problem with many witnesses and I completely agree that this is important but to set the deciding factor on answer a random question is a very poor metric.
Witnesses that actively participate is very important but there are better ways to gauge this than asking random questions and basically flagging the ones that don’t respond or even see it in the first place.
I took the time to answer this, first in fact, but I still believe if you are choosing me for witness based on this fact you are making a mistake. You should be making a far more educated choice than leaving it to that fact.
I actually didn't even see this post because I wasn't tagged in it, so @themarkymark has a point.
I only knew about it because it was posted by @themarkymark in the witness channel on steemit.chat.
And I agree that expecting an answer to a random question like the one asked in this post is absurd. I don’t even understand how it’s a serious question about a PoS blockchain. The Steem whitepaper answers this. Witnesses would be wasting their time being called to this post just to defer/refer to the whitepaper for an explanation. To make such answers some sort of voting criteria is equally ridiculous.
If you want metrics to use for whether or not witnesses should be supported here are a few:
There’s really not much else that matters. Being a developer/coder is cool, but isn’t necessarily required.
I hope this helps anyone who decided to read it.
How does one accurately derive this without asking them proper questions ? I'd like to know what witnesses thoughts and opinions are on what you just asked.
All right, don't take this the wrong way but – who are you?
I'm assuming that you're one of the 14,000 witnesses that the STEEM blockchain sports, but you don't appear to be in the top 100 ranking that @swolesome posted. Should you be? Is the system that he used to compile the list of important witnesses flawed? Is there a reason that we, as the community, should be deeply interested in your answers to these questions?
I am truthfully not trying to be a smartass here, I really want to know. If I'm supposed to be indirectly responsible for the governance of the entire social network and, by extension, an economic engine based on the blockchain, then it behooves me to find out the real value of your support, here.
Does it make me want to add my vote to support you, even though your out of the top 100? Does it make me question the methodology that generates the list, so that I wonder more about the legitimacy of the method but not the question?
And what point is it that you're supporting, exactly? There are a lot of them floating around. As he said, we should be concerned as voters as to what the beliefs and positions of the witnesses whom, in theory, represent us are.
These are things we need to know.
Well, seeing as I'm ranked 92, I'm in the top 100. That was the point I'm making. Relating to the larger point that @themarkymark was making, if someone is overlooked in this, then by nature they wouldn't be tagged and likely wouldn't see this, so if witness votes are based on responses to these questions, witnesses that were left out of the tagging by mistake would be disadvantaged for no reason at all. They wouldn't have a chance to provide their input.
You don't have to be deeply interested in my answers. I'd like you to be, of course, but I don't impose any moral obligation upon you. I do, however, think that relying on this process as your metric is faulty, as I've just demonstrated. Were it not for the fact this post was shared, I likely would have never seen it.
So if the tagged list was increased to the top 400 witnesses, do you think that would be a representative solicitation of those involved in making some of the most elemental decisions about the day-to-day operation of the blockchain? Would that be insufficient or would it be too many?
Normal people have no idea about whether that's a reasonable question to even ask. But every single user on this platform is asked and encouraged to vote for witnesses. In fact, witnesses who are regular posters often have a footer which links directly to where that can be done.
We are literally being asked to make decisions on who should be setting the exchange rate, and any number of other things – blindly.
If anything, asking people to decide on whether a witness should be voted for based on their responses to this post is a lot more honest and upfront, and at least as meaningful, as anywhere else I've ever seen it on the whole platform.
I consider that a flaw and that this sort of thing to be at least a basic attempt at rectification.
The populace here has very few metrics to make decisions about witnesses. We both know that to be completely true. As such, should we both be aggressively in pursuit of methods and means to make those metrics both visible and reflective of the facts?
I think we should. I think it's in my best interest as a member of the community and your best interest as a witness, at least if we both believe that people should vote for witnesses based on whether or not they share values and goals with the voter.
And if we don't share that as a common belief, that is also a thing that we should know.
Don't you agree?
Keep in mind most people do not have systems in place to be notified if they are tagged. Many of us do but I believe it is the minority. I think More witnesses do than normal users but steemit offers no notification without third party application or code.
From the point of view of someone who really isn't committed to digging into the seedy underbelly of how the Steemit backend works, but who somehow keeps stumbling across the sausage making process, whether he wants to or not…
You mean that witness selection isn't based on whether they respond to a random question?
The system itself asks me who I want to vote for as a witness, without providing any kind of guidance, any real kind of insight into what that entails or what it's about. And, even a cursory survey suggests that my vote (or votes) don't really matter anyway because I'm not a whale. Systematically, it really doesn't matter what I think or what most people think.
It matters what you think because you are both highly vested and already a witness. That puts you in a significant position of advantage over the rest of us.
As someone else put it elsewhere, "there are 14,000 witnesses but only 20 of them matter." Which seems to accord with the way things work around here.
I want to be really clear that that is not intended as a slight against you in any way. I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of "the community," by which I mean "people who aren't in the top 100 witness list and who aren't pulling in hundreds of dollars per post or throwing around hundreds of thousands of dollars of delegation a day," the least we can do is ask for some actual interaction so that we can judge whether our minuscule input is, in theory, backing someone who shares our values and interests in the community.
How else, one wonders, other than someone taking the lead and putting a question forward is one to make that assessment?
Now, would I have preferred that @swolesome have put things a little more "professionally?" Maybe. I don't really think it's fair for me to have that kind of expectation.
But it's perfectly reasonable for a member of the community to ask a question to the witnesses who theoretically represent them and track the responses, just as it is perfectly reasonable for a member of the US citizenry to pose a question to Congress and track what answers they provide. And from that information, yes, one can see whom should or should not be voting for.
The tool makes it possible for people to decide for themselves, and I believe that information and transparency makes for a better system all around. I honestly believe that you feel the same way. Because of that, I think this is the sort of thing that you should be in support of – even if you are not in direct support of this particular thing.
I would certainly be open to regular polling of the witnesses by the community on what they believe, tracking those responses, and making them available to everyone – to literally see who they should or should not be voting for. I think that's the sort of thing you should be supporting, too.
I spoke this quote: As someone else put it elsewhere, "there are 14,000 witnesses but only 20 of them matter." Which seems to accord with the way things work around here.
And I'll own it. ;)
Beautifully said. :')
How to get educated without information, dude?
Many witnesses are very active and it is easy to see this. Many are not and it is equally easy to see it. If I didn’t post a link in #witness on steemit.chat where many of us hangout, many would never have seen it. The stage is set by the wording of the post that this makes them a bad witness and unworthy of a vote.
Maybe it does.
If someone wants to make their decision based on whether a witness is engaged with the community and not so busy that they can get involved in this sort of thing, that's entirely up to them. That's the advantage of them possessing their own vote.
My personal position is that there are plenty of other good reasons that we should be hesitant to offer our vote to a good number of people who are already witnesses – but how would we know?
In most power delegation systems that pretend to be democratic, it's generally in the interests of those who would represent the populace to make their positions known, to be public figures, to continually prove themselves worthy of that vote. The vote must be regularly and frequently recast, representing the continuing trust and belief in those representatives who wield real power over those who are doing the voting. There is no assumption that once cast, the vote is forever. Most notionally democratic organizations don't really "vest" (ironic phrasing) significantly more power in the hands of those who have been most successful in earning a buck – at least not transparently.
In political science circles, that's called an oligarchy. (Technically a plutarchy, but why split hairs?)
Is that what the witnesses intend the method of governance to be and continue to be on the STEEM blockchain?
That in itself seems like it would be an important question to have answers to. It would certainly let many of us who are unlikely to be able to buy our way into the aristocracy know what to expect from those who already have seats at the head of the line.
But I reiterate, how would we know? Unless we ask – unless someone asks – there is no magical way for us to know, and when you simultaneously put the burden of finding out on the community rather than on the witnesses/oligarchy to inform the community…
That's just a bad combination.
Surely you can see that.
Like I mentioned before, I wouldn't have even known this post existed except for the fact I saw the link in the #witness room.
If I hadn't seen that link and never came here, would my lack of interaction somehow indicate that I'm a poor choice for witness? I don't think so, as I never got the chance to interact.
If a witness wants to be a hermit that is perfectly fine, it's just we have no idea this is the case and would like to have an educated vote one way, or the other. Great post btw.
There again, if the measure of whether a witness is a hermit or not is if they respond to a particular post, I don't think that's a good indicator.
Well, it would nice to know if they want to be engaged with the community or not. It's a good indicator how much they care about the community imho.
I don't disagree, but simply not responding to a post on Steemit isn't a good indicator of whether or not they want to be engaged to the community.
I think this is an interesting post to see who answers/takes time to answer , that's just my take...don't think it is trivia questions as much as getting More interaction between witnesses and non witnesses
I disagree MarkyMark, We all know that about half the visible witnesses talk and involve themselves in the community and the other half don't. And we have a system where about 90% of people here have no idea what we do or even vote, or so it's alleged statistically. This is no more playing trivia than having an open mic event like mine open to all, or the ones on Waves aggroed has that only cater to the elite top end, where the people can ask us to respond to things. I think this is a great initiative by @swolesome to call out some of the answers people ruminate on and want to know about from us first hand.
I'm not afraid, and I'll be answering every.single.one. And I know you are not afraid to make your positions known either, for sure. So... why is this worth mocking as trivia exactly? You know better than that, dude. C'mon man?
I agree on the participation but read my last response above why I feel this is a poor metric.
And how would anyone know that if we can't talk to them to ask questions ?
Intially no. I do not expect that many to answer my questions. But users who are learning about witnesses. Just saw you are one and you cared enough to answer. Now they will check you out and maybe use one of their witness votes on you. The goal of this project. Is to educate users on the witnesses. Some are very busy and still great witnesses.
We shall see mark.
It sets a very poor baseline to witness selection to users who already struggle to understand the role of a witness.
Then how will they ever know without actions like this one. I support it, and I'm not scared to answer a damn thing.
Neither am I. My answer was here 3 minutes after the post was made. But I still feel that’s a poor metric to encourage new users to use as the sole reason to vote for a witness. The way the post is presented , this is how it comes off.
I'll rephrase it next time. I would want this to be a way for users to research who answers. And know they aren't dead :). And cause some form of engagement.
Waste of my time. Read the white paper and stop asking stupid questions.
C'mon Bern, it's a valid question, perhaps the truth of the matter is, that since its possible to buy the witness positions at this point, we are not best being represented? I'm not saying that's my 100% opinion, but it's not inaccurate either. A popular vote would put up people who might actually be active, might help kill the dead inactive witness problem and encourage people to vote on a platform where it's alleged like some 80 or 90% of folks have never voted once either because they know their tiny vote is pointless or because reasons
Ultimately, you yourself probably have enough cash on hand to buy a handful of top slots, and isn't that a form of centralization or at least anti-diversity.
I know, you can crush me like a bug for having an opinion, but isnt this the sort of question you would encourage on #speakyourmind for example?
Help me understand why questioning the Doctrine of Paper is a bad thing. And I'm approaching you fairly rationally and humbly to open the dialog. You know I generally come out in favor of your moves, and we've covered that before, but this answer, sort of puzzles me, coming from you.
By the way, mega self voting your comment to pin it to the top is exactly why money drowns out the voice of the people. Nice move Nextgen. You literally just made my point for me.
That was hardly a "mega self vote"...probably less than 10% and I have a ton of SP tied up right now.
Money is power, power is money. That's life. Deal with it.
I don't disagree, and I work around my lack of wealth with adaptation, improvisation and overcoming it. I do okay as a result, as you've seen by my visibility and efforts around the platform, and I know you've seen them. I do "deal with it" but I also don't use the little bit of wealth I do have to oppress others voices, I use it to lift them up by feeding the homeless, or feeding and shoeing barefoot, malnutrioned children around the world. I'd love to debate this with you tomorrow live on Steemitzens Of Steem, if you care to do this live with an audience on voice ;)
I would, but I really just don't care to waste any more time debating whatever the hell this is...
Ok then, I'll end on this note. I hereby offer you the opportunity to come on the air with me on ANY TOPIC of your choosing and give you air time to which the shows enjoy some audience and the follow up replay posts get some attention. The people love hearing you talk, no matter what side they are on, and I can do the debate club thing and take the other side, even if IM ON your side in the topic at hand, cause, well, pro radio interview guy, its a thing I can do.
Let's play radio. God you'd go viral. :D
Vests. Otherwise we'll have witnesses like noganoo & dart with their thousands of accounts.
I just cringed a little.
Current way. The other way would be abused by people signing up for multiple accounts.
But @timcliff isnt that harder than just buying a top slot and bumbling us into trouble or even being nefarious? (I think I'll drink some JB Scotch now while I await your reply) ;)
Isn't.
Isn't (can you add a period to that or not, inquiring minds must know!) :P
Hahaha oh GTG. Darn it. You got me. Right in the grammar feelz. :)
You should check this post out that I did a while back :)
https://steemit.com/til/@timcliff/til-i-cannot-buy-my-way-in-to-a-top-19-witness-position
On it boss! Although I did consider teasing you about spamming me, but I already follow you for follow :D
Can we expect to see you on Steemitizens of Steem tomorrow sometime between 9am-1:30pm EST? I've just posted the deets as the top link in the sircork blog moments ago as a reminder. We had 8 witnesses, a dozen steemitizens spoke and about 40 or 50 people listened last week - and everyone was hoping you would pop in, it was mentioned by audience members asking if you would come by, since they had so much fun with you and I in August. I hope you can carve off a few minutes to say hi to the peoples and we won't make you cuss this time, unless you get really really mad, okay?
It would be fun, but I'm super busy at the moment. A few other people are asking me to do interviews too, and I'm already into January! (I still owe @aggroed a 1-on-1 too) Hopefully once we get into the new year, I'll have some time :)
I love it when a plan comes together. Be well. Have a great holiday season!
You too!
Ah man, you did it in steem, I did it in dollars and aimed at buying all 20 top slots in my rough calcs. I came up north of 300 million usd.
But you forgot the option someone that slimy would take. For example, TimCliff, you are #1/#2 always flip flopping with Jesta. So, suppose I offered you an opening bid of 5 million cash or bitcoin, take your choice of fiats or cryptos of your pref for 5m. Would you sell me your server and account and walk away? No, okay then 10m, final offer. Ten MILLION dollars, delivered in anonymous btc or ltc or eth or whatever you want that can be obtained. You in?
Ok, I know you well enough to to know the answer to that hypothetical is no.
But what do you think about the others, especially the dead ones. Top 20 x avg buyout lets say 6M does the trick. 120 Million and I can buy em, and then assume all that daily income. Do you have a guess as to how much daily income that is? It's a lot, and i'm not doing that math at 3:51 am Anyway, if so happened, and you then started selling it, you could effectively destroy our economy, which might be exactly the bad-actor's goal.
Naturally its a bit ludicrous to go THAT far with the scenario, but let's face it, I guarantee a top slot could be bought under the table that way from one of them.
And so it sound like nuts, unless you actually believe in the chain, then the concept of buying a slot that pays like a top 20 witness pays, and hodling isnt insane, if you plan to actually keep taking that income for oh say, a decade or forever.
It's an exercise for the reader as to who you might speculate the sell-out might be.
You are missing the point. Witnesses are the servants of the blockchain. Ultimately they represent the will of Steem stakeholders.
Scenario:
Malicepays $10M to top witnessAlice,Aliceaccepts the offer, and... 3 seconds laterAliceis unapproved by dozen of big stake holders.Malicestill have an account and keys and deal is valid, right?Oh maybe
Malicealso requested non-disclosure.And
Malicethinks thatAlicecan be trusted.So here's the thing:
If
Alicecan be ultimately trusted, she will reject that offer or at least will be transparent about that transaction taking place (see: 3 seconds later). Also, you know, sudden unapprovals just happen.The other option is that
Alicecan't be trusted...The more non-disclosure and malicious the offer was, the more "so what?" applies. Is
Malicegoing to send $10M to someone that can't be trusted?Actually it may be you missing the point, but I did write the point on two days of no sleep at like 4am, but it is not that simple. 10M shuts a mouth real tight. You replace Alice who succumbed from being an awesome person to insta-easy-wealth greed and silently the other person assumes her account, and proceeds to do so again with another slot, and on and on, until they can do real damage. Radical corruption can take some time to apply.
Which is as opposed to...what? The other method where vote count matters? Or some other method? I've already pointed out how much cheaper spamming votes would be than even buying out a witness slot is by your own estimations.
I was wondering if you read the whitepaper and if you have consider what are the reasons why vest are used for witness ranking and not the number of votes?
Commenting so notifications will follow. But while I'm here, Hi Team, its a fair question, but as I said to Bernie, without picking a side, is it ever wrong to question the white paper? Or it is infallible and therefore unmalleable, like the US constitution? We change it with hardforks, 19, going on 20 times now. Not saying we should or shouldn't now, but i do like the idea of open debates about it and ensuring we hear from the guys like you and me on our stances, which I presume your response represents in this round? :D <3
Point of order: the U.S. Constitution is very, very malleable – there's a pile of Amendments which make deep and significant changes to many aspects of the original text.
You can think of them like patches issued by government maintainers to the software of State.
Which, surprisingly, is very much like a hard fork.
(My personal and cynical take on why vests are use for witness ranking and not number of votes is twofold. Firstly, because account creation is relatively cheap for the amount of profit that you could theoretically expose by witness currency manipulation. Secondly, because going by vests privileges those who already have stake in the platform and the blockchain, to a degree which is almost unassailable by newcomer without bottomless pockets. This is also why the original design does not require re-voting on a regular basis because that would undermine the established order. Maybe good for establishing the belief in a less volatile value for a crypto-commodity, but not much good for pushing for anything but the original, classic definition of conservatism in the old guard.)
Nothing wrong with questioning anything. It's wrong not to be able to question some stuff.
The second the number of votes is used to determined the ranking of witnesses there will be people working to create script to automate the account creation and witness voting by those account. It would probably take less than 24 to create those script and that's why such a thing, even if it wouldn't lead to being automated, hopefully won't happen cause it would have to be roll back. There's a lot of thinking that has gone into the creation of Steem and a lot of these basics stuff are answered in the whitepaper.
Thank you for the thoughtful response @teamsteem, i expected nothing less, good sir!
Vests. (See the Steem whitepaper.)
And this will probably be the only question that I answer because notifications for tagging on Steemit are off, so I won’t know that I’ve been tagged. If you have future questions that you’d like me, specifically, to answer, feel free to reach me on steemit.chat: ats.david
I’m not hard to find and I don’t shy away from anything, so unwillingness to engage isn’t an issue at all.
I will definantly take you up on that.
I wish youd come back by YAH and visit with us on the radio though, the avg user listens there, not to #witness where only WE are.
As others have said, if you purely look at vote counts and not stake we'll end up being run by whoever makes the most accounts..
In my humble opinion, vests represent the interest of the platform (in a subjective way) lets call it management views.
But also number of voters for the witness building communities should be an indicator of support that big share holders might want to use to gauge community support and witness social endeavors to chose who to back with their vests.
Total votes from proven members of communities should at least be an indicator
I mean, this is a businnes afterall and the capital backing the his block-chain needs to control what the bests interest of the platform are, but user adoption, engagement and retention are key for the long term platform growth, so if the people creating communities are not taken into account by the shareholders, they will just stop doing it and move somewhere it is recognized and valued.
The marketing scheme that the shareholders support today is the honest car salesman and that might work short term and give some visibility, but we want valued customers that come back, not one shot money seekers that come and go...
Up to the shareholders to use the social gauges to measure a social network, or to blindly support technical development while leaving the fuel of the platform (human engagement) behind.
I believe in a social network, and concentrate my efforts in that direction, time will tell if i was wrong and should have instead get a costume.
BTW to those referring to the white paper, i love that when someone refers to the white paper the answer usually is "It is outdated", but some times it is written in stone... ;)
Good point. I too have heard that duality about the white paper. Is it gospel or can anything from it be changed.
100%, cumulative voter vest totals is the better way. Total votes would be useless. It would be very very very easy to game the system if going by total votes
Thanks for answering. I could see someone selling delgations for total votes.
Also, you have to take in account how easy it is to create accounts.. look at the bot armies many have created already. Many here could easily create thousands of accounts and have them vote on a witness to increase the vote count, but right now that doesnt help because vests is what counts :)
Delegation has zero factor in witness voting power. It is the owner of the steem power that gets credit for the steem power when it comes to voting power regardless if it is delegated out or not.
I didn't day it did. I was giving an example of bribing for votes.
Unfortunately that happens and will likely always happen. It is the same in government as well.
It's still important to try and do something. Edcuated voters are better then the ones that do nothing.
Agreed.
vests is the best. however things could be changed in the future. For example after 365 days a vote is removed. this way some old votes from inactive users are not counting anymore in the witness selection..
and i think steemit.com must list more then only the top 50 witnesses. Equal chances for everyone to receive a vote for people visiting this page!
Votes that expire are a good way to shed off some of the influence of players that are either no longer involved significantly or are no longer present at all.
Especially considering steemit is only in its infancy. This could help as steemit gets older. And loses users only active in the beginning when it was in its infancy.
An open debate/discussion is what is needed. Thanks @swolesome!
a more timely question would be about how "convert to steem" feature of the wallet is broken(gives you half the steem of sbd instead of 10xish), and what should we do about it.
or, how much do witness price feeds really matter?
or, what are the downsides of a highvalued SBD.
Does supply vs demand dictate that sbd will have high value, since it has a much lower supply than steem?
The convert is not "broken" it is intended for SBD to be pegged at $1.00 so when SBD is over 1.00 please DO NOT DO NOT use convert. ONLY use MARKET or send to an exchange
I expect he will ask those and more, but had to start somewhere?
think this is actually getting dialogue going which would be the whole point of this to begin with....seems that the intention is good and seems to be opening up some type of interaction
muy bien
I intend to throw bigger and bigger hardballs.
I like your last question the most. Its supposed to be pegged to the dollar but it does have a smaller supply. We may never see sbds this high again. Or we coukd never see it dip below $1.50.
We are currently producing between 20,000-23,000 SBD a day, It may help to increase supply. I am not sure right now. There has been a LOT of disucssions about SBD the past few days though.
You can go here to see how many SBD, SP and Vests are created each day https://steemdb.com/api/rewards
Saving that link. Is there a way to affect how many sbd can be reduced or increased?
The current way is the best way. It's easy to make thousands of bots to vote, there are many bot masters out there.
Wow, you’re on the radio! What great work you are doing! Blessings to you 🙏🏽
We agree with the overall sentiment here that witnesses on votecount wouldn't work for the same reasons mentioned by our fellow witnesses and that Vests is still the best way to do this.
For us, it makes sense that the users with the most vests have the heaviest weight in determening the top witnesses. They are after all heavily invested in the platform and stand to benefit from growth. Therefor it makes sense they choose wisely which ultimately works way better than something as arbitrary as a generic count that can be forged.
ps. we certainly can't claim not being in the know of posts like these, seeing as we obviously use our own app Steemify to receive instant notifications of @mentions.