Currently, the Whitepaper of Hive defines Delegated Proof of Stake as:
Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) is the consensus algorithm behind Hive. In a DPoS algorithm, the selection of block producers (called ’witnesses’ on Hive) and all other consensus-based functions are decided based on the weight of staked funds supporting them. Stakeholders hold the highest prominence in DPoS.
- Page 5 of https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
Currently, there is only one option for downvote/downwards voting for the Three protocols involving DPoS voting consensus on the Hive blockchain and that is only for Community social media posts. There is no option to downvote witnesses or proposals. This presents a situation that disproportionally applies the ability to take away consensus from others staked voting to only one of the three consensus voting protocols. From what I can tell the main purpose of DPoS was to vote for witnesses and proposals. If downvoting is to be used in a specific way that should only apply to one of three protocols for consensus voting then the Whitepaper should either be amended to address the issue of downvoting or explain why this is the case.
I propose in an attempt to strengthen our community relationship with large stake holders, encourage further use of Hive and investment into our ecosystem through either post creation, becoming a witness or not afraid of retaliation for opinions expressed on a DPoS Blockchain meant to be a:
...dedicated proponent of free speech and transparency.
- Section V.; Sub Section V.2
Page 8 of https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
V.5. Content Monetization
Hive is by design intended to store vast amounts of content and to make it available for time-based monetization. Content may be submitted in the form of a ’post’ (parent post) or ’comment’ (child post). Once submitted, a piece of content will be monetizable for a period of 7 days. During that time it may be curated upwards or downwards through upvotes and downvotes until its final value is determined at the end of the 7 day timer.
- Page 5 of https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
...That the Hive Whitepaper be amended to remove the downvoting function, that only applies to one of three staked voting protocols for DPoS consensus voting that only applies to community social media posts by amending the following two sentences in the Hive Whitepaper:
As worded currently
V.5. Content Monetization pg.8
During that time it may be curated upwards or downwards through upvotes and downvotes until its final value is determined at the end of the 7 day timer.
V.6. Distributing Rewards Pg.9
When a user submits a post it initiates a 7 day curation window during which it may be upvoted or downvoted until its final evaluation is reached at the end of 7 days.
Proposed DPoS protocol Changes
V.5. Content Monetization pg.8
During that time it may be curated upwards through upvotes until its final value is determined at the end of the 7 day timer.
V.6. Distributing Rewards Pg.9
When a user submits a post it initiates a 7 day curation window during which it may be upvoted until its final evaluation is reached at the end of 7 days.
This change in the Hive Whitepaper's wording is intended to remove the downvoting function on Hive's first layer.
III.2. Protocol Changes
Hardforks and key protocol changes are accepted by 17 out of 20 consensus witnesses. Witnesses accept protocol changes by updating their nodes or reject them by continuing to run the present version. Protocol changes will not be applied and take effect until consensus is reached. All protocol changes are proposed, developed, prepared for and implemented through a transparent and collaborative team-working environment. They are entirely open source from initiation to their final release.
- Page 5 of https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
How would spammers/plagiarizers and things like that be dealt with?
If that is your concern and if this does not gain traction then I can explore writing a proposal to instead incorporate downvoting to proposals and witnesses but that is going to create the inverse with the same issue but with witnesses. How do you think recent court rulings about censorship being ok because centralized peeps like facebook and twitter own the content. Just an assumption but wouldnt downvoting other people's content that they can show a history of utilizing and living off of the earning can cause some interesting scenarios? I do not know but if spam is your issue that is understandable and I guess my answer is to not vote for the proposal, create one that implements downvotes fairly to both proposals and witnesses as well as content or just accept that the community approved the watchers proposal to do just that live with the culture that is currently in place that might encourage larger investors to come in and possibly do worse actions.
Yes the spam and plagiarizing is the issue I worry about. Blurt has no downvotes, I wonder how they will deal with that when the time comes.
Steem had a huge spam problem that was largely taken care of via downvoting at the time.
I agree that downvotes right now are being misused though.
Maybe the fact that on blurt you have to pay something for every interaction slows that. You have a pay a little to post and comment so maybe that will help stop mass abuse all platforms will have some spam. I mean Facebook managed for decades with spam. I think maybe being able to block people or build communities with mutual ‘friends’ could help. Maybe we need to let society sort itself. I mean if people plagerise you can still sue them.
sorry the REST of this community is SO SLOW at catching up."THEY" absolutely make things WORSE when "THEY" determine THEMSELVES the protector of everything and everywhere...
It's SICK, IMHO.
HIGHEST Regards!
Which is why I am aiming to eliminate how large stake holders bias can affect the community through downvoting in a non transparent way by simply getting rid of downvote option or engaging in productive conversations for solutions that are productive and not isolating to both parties.
absolutely I have noticed the main thing is a lack of understanding or discussion just a sense of if you don't do what I do or say, or don't believe the same things as I do then your a bad person unworthy of any income. There is no discussion or trying to understand where everyone is coming from. I have just seen lately people seem to judge those who are not 100 percent powering up, some people need to use their earnings to invest in materials to improve, some to live off, the site was developed with a 50 50 split to enable people to have an investment and an income simultaneously. Yes it's amazing when people can invest everything they earn and wait for maturity of their earnings, at which point they too will withdraw their money. But someone is not lesser for not doing that. I feel like people are not looking at the fact everyone is not them, everyone doesn't have their exact same life set up etc. I mean it is fine of course to choose not to vote for people who do not do the exact things you deem to be acceptable/ worthy but quite another to be able to take away all their earnings. I really wish you success with this and I support it. I want to love hive I really do , I don't want to feel dread and fear logging in. I actually think having more than one platform helps the space, it brings more awareness to blockchain platforms and encourages improvement and growth. Costa and Nero and Starbucks do not hurt one another, if anything they all contributed to the take away coffee sector growing.
thankyou for your support on my posts btw <3.i need to recharge my vote did way too much curation over the last two days as been at home.
I think the idea has some merit, but I'd like to see spam abusers and plagiarism still have penalties...
I'm on ecency, not sure how to vote for this
https://ecency.com/proposals
I voted it up, Yo 🤩
🤩
Hey, check and make sure it worked!!
I think I saw tho that it went up over 40 million, was at 37
really????
nah just half a mill. You never know not sure if this will break 1 mill but still I do hope more well versed individuals like you or @enginewitty and others feel inspired to make these proposals and influence change and discussion in a robust yet healthy way!
Darn thing flipped to another proposal after I voted.
Did my vote register?
Not everything has to be symmetrical. The reward distribution has been largely successful at not incentivizing bad actors with downvotes. This also reduces bad actors from amassing stake which can have negative outcomes for the governance of the network.
If your concern is with the clarity of the white paper, that functions only are based on stake-weighted support, I think your read on that might be too narrow. The white paper makes itself clear enough that the post rewards can be upvoted and downvoted. If you want to play lawyer, I'd argue that
A) The sentence you highlighted part of starts with "In a DPoS algorithm" meaning we're talking about an example.
B) "all other consensus-based functions" in the above context doesn't mean distributing rewards from a pool. It means who makes the blocks and who determines the course of the network.
C) If you were to ignore A and B, "the weight of staked funds supporting them" can mean cumulative including positive and negative votes from staked funds. And before you repeat yourself that this means witness and proposal votes should include downvotes, no it does not.
I do not see how you can dance around this. Are you saying that Content curation is not staked consensus-based?
The issue is, tackling abuse of the rewards pool that downvotes are supposed to solve correct? What is supposed to solve the abuse of witness voting or proposals?
Better clarifying the purpose of downvoting in the whitepaper could help a lot as well as mentioning why downvotes are not applied to other DPoS functions where many in the community are arguing, not so much myself but recognize the issue as just as important, that is easily abused.
Better clarification/definition of what rewards pool abuse is as well as what other functions downvotes should have as well can help better regulate or give more substance to an organization like Hivewatchers; where we can fund them better as a community, have a whitepaper they have to follow in regards to monitoring and executing downvotes in a more regimented way aside from just spam but being able to regulate threats of violence or any other actions that might be draw negative attention to the chain from the authorities. I personally think eventually, if we can better clarify the function of downvoting with a very specific clarification for exact purposes of downvoting we could fund Hivewatchers more, maybe even have some sort of governance applied to them as an organization essentially making them a DAO.
I once had a very long phone conversation and a few discord conversations with @patrice about many issues regarding downvotes but when we were steem. A lot of concerns she expressed to me years ago as well as others is coming to fruition in regards to legalistic matters and content creation. It is just the issue is, I am not sure what the difference between @steemcleaners is from watchers and what happened with that spam api that people had to stop using a few months ago. Having someone coming at ya from @hivewatchers, in a "unofficial way" saying not to upvote comments (after HF update?) while threats of violence is being conducted on your content and others even comments saying "I am calling FBI" seemed to bring glee to this unofficial watcher member.
So I suppose the alternative aside from elimination of rewards pool would be to better define what downvoting is intended for in the whitepaper and laying out specific examples so the community can better understand downvotes as well as possibly turning Hivewatchers into a DAO that would be specifically in charge of executing downvotes on Content in a more clear, fair and just manner that makes sense to the community and protects the rewards pool also from large stakers.
The distribution of rewards is essentially a consensus based process although few individual posts or comments ever come close to meeting the blockchain definition of consensus, which is what I meant by context.
The current solution is that there is sufficient stake amongst people that act with the interests of Hive in mind that the barrier for abuse is very high. And while some people have very large stakes in the network, nobody has unilateral control over the top 20 producers or the unilateral ability to fund a proposal. As we saw with Steem, if there is a single entity with enough stake for unilateral control and uses it in bad faith, there is a path forward as well, but that scenario does not seem likely to happen on Hive.
In regards to Hivewatchers, as far as I know there is a scope for them to cover and deviations from that scope are generally pointed out. I sometimes am the one pointing that out. But I don't agree that getting into specifics of abuse in the Hive white paper makes sense. Hivewatchers is already funded by a DAO, with support from the stakeholders of Hive. Is the reason for bringing up the non-symmetry between reward pool voting and witness/DAO voting that their proposal can't be downvoted?
You and I seem to differ on how much weight and purpose we put into the Hive white paper. I generally see it as a document that reflects what we have, and it gets updated as Hive changes. I get the sense you see it as more of a constitutional document, that directs what Hive is or should be. Am I correct?
Yes, I do see the Whitepaper a very important document that should be used to strengthen our blockchain. The U.S. Constitution is a somewhat good example but more so outlines natural rights where as the UN Human rights doctrines seem to be the main issue of concern globally in regards content but not where I want to take the convo.
Essentially, as a 18 year union member who has stood up for other people's working rights as a steward or crew lead through Collectively Bargained Agreements, I recognize the importance respecting documents such as a whitepaper or contract. Still we can point out how a decentralized chain is not an institution but is it not something that we have to protect beyond the rewards pool and hostile attacks from low stake users? I do not like the division and culture playing out that has undertones of the centralized steem day in regards to large stake holders and witnesses.
I would love to have a better written whitepaper that allows for the community to feel need to align with witness and protect them just as the large stake holders want to protect the rewards pool. I would love to see more accountability for large stake holders and witnesses without demonizing them or having them feel unappreciated.
Can you point me to the Hivewatchers DAO? seems 100 HBD daily is really low. I would love to read more about the Hivewatchers DAO and how we can further implement so that way they can eventually maybe take over the downvoting responsibilities of the chains content but in a transparent way while providing significantly more funding.
The DAO funding Hivewatchers is the Hive DAO/proposal system at 105 HBD/day.
We seem to agree on the culture-unifying potential behind a white paper, or a foundational document by another name. We almost were able to successfully defend Steem, except enough stake was in the hands of people that were not on the same page as everyone else when it came to blockchain dos and don'ts... to put it lightly. I don't know if it was that they were ignorant of what a blockchain should be or if it was just cynical greed, but it was a disappointment.
Not long after Hive was (re)born I set out to write a guide about Hive and what it meant to be a blockchain in very simple terms that I felt could be such a document, but after writing it a bit I felt like it was tonally aimed at 5 year olds and it got scrapped.
I love it! We are young chain with a bright future ahead of us with people/witnesses like you who care! I do think you are onto something with your guide. Maybe you can finish writing it and work with Patrice to make it more legalistic and more of an outline for how downvotes and upvotes should, I guess ethically be applied to content; such as over rewarding and what exactly that means and how specifically downvotes should be used to protect both the content creators, node operators where content is stored and of course reward pool.
I might have shelved it because I felt like it was more marketing copy. Here's an excerpt:
You may not know what a blockchain is, but Hive is one, and you might not even notice. That is what makes Hive incredible: seemless interaction with a global, decentralized currency and content platform.
Hive is a blockchain network, what is that?
A blockchain is a way to store data (blocks) in a way that can not be changed. In Hive, this data can be transactions (Adam sends John 6 HIVE) and content ("Here are my favorite recipes"). You have probably heard of Bitcoin, which was the first network to make a blockchain work without the need for a central authority. Hive builds upon that invention to do much more than send tokens from one place to another, and does so much faster.
The Hive blockchain is decentralized, meaning no single authority has control over the blockchain. This, believe it or not, is what gives value to Bitcoin and other blockchain currencies like Hive. If you do not need to trust a central authority, you can trust that your own balances won't be altered. How Hive accomplishes decentralization differs from Bitcoin, which gives it several advantages.
Hive Governance
The Hive network has people called witnesses to produce new blocks.
Also in regards to witness and proposal downvoting, it is my assumption that if the upcoming elimination of old witness votes does help solidify the witness ranking than the witness should be exempt from the downvoting function for at least 3-5 years as a reward for investing into the chain.
The issue becomes transparency and the bias that is applied to community content that either the witnesses ignore or participate in leaving many in the community disgruntled.
Thanks for making this post. Very informative and lovely research.
God bless you dear friend @dynamicsteemians
There will always be a lot to improve @dynamicsteemians. The most important thing is what you are doing. Find out which ones we can improve! Thanks, good day to you.
Solidarity!✊
How do we vote for this proposal?
https://wallet.hive.blog/proposals
Thank you voted and reshared 🙏
Thanks!
❤️👍🏻
It's great to see some thoughtful suggestions in the whitepaper, and I admire your decision to downvote witness. I will help you by sharing this proposal in a large community Beauty of Creativity discord server.
Downvoting the witnesses? Then I misunderstand this proposal, because I thought that this proposal is about Removing the downvoting option for posts and comments. I currently do not see anything about downvoting the witnesses in the Proposed DPoS protocol Changes.
No you read correctly. I am used to english misunderstandings with the international community so just let it fly as I did not want cause further misunderstands but figured to let people read the proposal and vote they way they see fit. this misunderstanding has been resolved.
Thank you!
@dynamicsteemians please forgive me for misunderstanding the proposal. I was going through alot of multi tasking. Sorry to waste your time. You mentioned in your post about downvoting witness and that made me confused/misguided. Sorry again.
you are good my man
Here you go. Sharing it to discord!
Thank you!
There is no option to downvote witnesses or proposals.
How to support that proposal? !PIZZA
Sounds like a good plan to me :)
I was going to make a proposal to propose adding downvotes to witness and proposal voting if this does not gain traction.
https://peakd.com/me/proposals Proposal is on the very bottom
Thanks
I'm in.
Thanks!
You are welcome my man! If you read the comments this proposal is more so meant to bring to light the inequalities of our DPoS system. People talk gamification, which in all honesty I think I want to try the @hivebuzz gamification thing soon, but the real gamification was to write a whitepaper that benefits specifically the large stake holders that allows them to thumb down the community of mostly smaller stake holders.
@valued-customer which is why I always said it will take 3-5 years before DPoS irons out naturally. We have a good chance as Hive is the best ran network of nodes, fast transactions, functional smart contracts etc. The mechanics is sound except for the DPoS system.
Im a little confused. How is it that making this proposal on the DHF for funding will go through? I thought the DHF was for raising money per day for a proposal or something?
What is the criteria for this to pass and be accepted?
III.2. Protocol Changes
Hardforks and key protocol changes are accepted by 17 out of 20 consensus witnesses. Witnesses accept protocol changes by updating their nodes or reject them by continuing to run the present version. Protocol changes will not be applied and take effect until consensus is reached. All protocol changes are proposed, developed, prepared for and implemented through a transparent and collaborative team-working environment. They are entirely open source from initiation to their final release.
But in all reality it will not ever come close to support as the only way a proposal can be passed is if the same people that enjoy downvoting would have to support with needing 30 million HP staked votes on it lol
Which was another way to Highlight how much inequality there is with DPoS
@ura-soul
Waste of time.... deleted post.
The proposal is not about down voting witnesses
Let me know if that comes up, I was so excited by the idea I just upvoted you without completely reading the post.
I do not mind how you vote or if you chose to remove support.
I want to downvote witnesses who have shown any bias towards free speech, and I mean any bias at all.
Very understandable which is why I highlighted the inequity with downvotes. I proposed this first as I felt this would immediately make the bias irrelevant and strengthen community dynamics with all Hive stakers with minimal hypothetical suffering.
Sorry all for my poor English! I will work on that surely. This created a misunderstanding since I was doing multi tasking alot. @phusionphil please forgive me. I understand it was an emotional swing for you but sometimes it happened please forgive me.
Okay that's the last time I will be following any information received from @dlmmqb, I was directed here for this reason, sorry for wasting everyone's time...
Just a simple misunderstanding
Good morning
Very Well said! I will share this with my TWITTER and Facebook! ^_^
Ok but this proposal is for Hivians. Not sure those places are appropriate but do as you feel is right duder
Sure buddy...
I have an idea for another proposal:
That is that instead of taking out downvoting completely - make all downvotes worth over say 10 HBD subject to community consideration placing value on accounts with a great level of community activity and content on equal par with accounts that have a great deal of stake value.
Either this or introduce an appeals process where the community can vote on whether or not a large downvote is legitimate to the purpose of reducing spam, plagiarism or disproportionate circle jerking.
This would be to protect truly authentic quality content creators from being downvoted simply because a whale does not agree with their content or does not like them as a person.
All the best with this proposal!
I am so glad people like you and others are intrigued and thinking about positive changes! yes that does sound pretty cool! I need to explore the hardforks to see what else we maybe missing and if adjustments are possible that way with DV power. Great idea! Maybe even make recharge rate 2x longer. As it is this is just a shot in the dark that seems reasonable enough to spur community action towards a healthy middle ground with large stakers and witnesses. But really I love the pro active and health discussions!
Hey no worries, glad to be a 'people like me'. haha
If the witnesses see no need for some kind of resolution to the whole downvote scandal then there is really no hope in trying to push a resolution.
Have any of the top witnesses come on board or are sympathetic to this change or similar?
Congratulations @dynamicsteemians! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 100 posts.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:
PIZZA Holders sent $PIZZA tips in this post's comments:
@dlmmqb(4/9) tipped @dynamicsteemians (x1)
You can now send $PIZZA tips in Discord via tip.cc!
well maybe hive conciousness working or something :D But i also already wroted about that here 11 days ago:
https://peakd.com/polish/@khrom/dlaczego-dovnwoty-szkodza-sieci-hive
and here 3 days ago:
https://peakd.com/polish/@khrom/podsumowanie-downvotowego-researchu-summary-of-downvote-research
First part it's only polish but i think that some translator could help ;)
It was reealy really big storm about this in polish community.
Second article is my summary and conclusion about all of that and there is also english.
Maybe it's helps you see some things in relation to downvoting in a different light ;)
I propose and have for a very long time that we ADD the downvote to the other two. Witnesses rarely change because it's easier to get to the magic number when the smaller stakes have no rebuttal to the larger ones.
By adding the downvote to proposals and witness elections, we the people could actually override the largest stake holders who keep the status quo as is and the community can be in control, rather than the Oligarchy.
I suggest, like I did, for others to create a proposal for this. I appreciate your input and energy to this community focused proposal!
HIVE!D
How many screenshots do you have? Sometimes they are out of context or misleading. When you are doing so much effort, why not put a link too. It will enable us to understand the full context of writing if needed.
The full context was HIVE!D
Anything else is cheating.
HIVE!Regards ✌️😎🥓👍