RE: A game theory requirement for steem downvotes has not been shown
I assume actors will game the system. If an up vote only system were deployed I'd write a bot and collect all of the rewards. Others would write similar bots and it would end up as interest on steem power. Linear rewards will only make it more like interest.
I wouldn't do it to hurt steem, but to highlight the error in thinking present in removing down votes and encourage things to be fixed.
I have half a mind to demonstrate the issue with giving down votes the final say. I could write a bot to whale flag top post after upvote lockout. This is made even more powerful in light of whales not voting.
There is only one thing that keeps me from this behavior and it's because I'm a creator not a destroyer and it would hurt my reputation and the value of my steem.
Instead I offer free advice to fix these attack vectors by implementing vote negation. Make the game theory balanced. Punish abbusive voters.
Steem is great and this community is strong. Things are working relatively well even with rough edges.
Under what you imagine vote negation to be, would they be public in the sense that it could be known who negated the vote of anyone?
I'm asking cause I thought this would be the case but when I asked around about if they were in favor of vote negation they said it would be a terrible idea because they imagined who negated a vote couldn't be known and this could be a problem which I think is right.
That reminded me on these four posts which Dan wrote ages ago:
What would Smart Ballots and Kamikaze voters mean to Democracy?
Origin of the Right to Vote and how the system denies this right
The Politics of Negative Voting
Negative Voting and Steem
It is worth rereading them ...
I already read them all but I'll re-read them because I feel like I might gain quite a lot from it. I'm not sure I understood everything there was to understand from these posts. I remember being really interested in them but not quite sure I understood all their implication. Thank you very much for your comment @ervin-lemark. I really appreciate it.
You are welcome.
I share your feelings :)
My first impression, eight months ago, was that the ideas are very idealistic. (what a sentence - ideas are always idealistic :))
The thing is that the scenario in a way really happened. Canceling out the votes and such ...
Idea are always idealistic. This is pure bliss. I won't forget that one.
I agree that there's some quite of vote cancellation going on and it would only make sense to make it more precise and accessible to everyone. At least that's my feeling.
I agree with you feelings.
Two issues though:
In Dan's scenario all votes are equal. Here they are not!
I re-read the 4 post you linked from Dan and my mind was blown. I had totally forgot about them but now I remember why I had keep a positive stance toward vote countering.
About the power distribution, those who risk a lot at the start will reap great reward as Steem become ever more successful. If they decide to sell then the distribution become more even.
I enjoy how the coin was initially distributed. It gave chance to anyone who believe in Dan more so than a ICO which would most probably have given a bigger advantage to rich people.
Also in Dan's scenario not all votes are equal.
I told you so :)
Then I must rereread the posts :)
Thanks for the links. I need to reread those too. I was new when Dan first posted them, so I didn't really catch the significance.
You are welcome. Yes, they are significant. The proof being that after eight months I still remember them reading. And I know the content.
Thanks for the comment! I need to read your articles on vote negation again. I was new here when you posted them. Going from memory, I don't see much difference between vote negation and the current "whale experiment" that @smooth and @abit are running, except - as you point out - the upvote lockout during the last 12 hours. I may not remember it very well, though. I will reread those articles.