Does it not follow that using this class of tools is kind of like shooting yourself in the foot?
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that most people cannot run this kind of bot? Or that this kind of bot is not good for the platform? Or both?
I have found that bots I design in ruby are sometimes ported to other languages, in some way or another. I see this as a proof of concept. Almost a specification for other designs that might be easier to use.
In the case of self-voting, if you always post good content, you should always self-vote. In some ways, this bot reinforces the need to always post good content since, at least for me, it's just automating something I already do. I'm just documenting it here.
I actually meant in the sense that it may not be good for the platform. "If you always post good content" sounds great, but WTF is "good content"? A meme? I see what you are saying though .I think if "good content" is defined as content which generates traffic to Steemit > votes > currency then it makes perfect sense. If you get into some definition of "good content" based on aesthetics it quickly becomes a "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining" situation.
If something is possible to do, somebody will do, @inertia just make it open source. If Steem will fail for that probably it's because it wasn't designed well.
That's a decent point as well. If there's a flaw, it will eventually be reflected in the market price until the flaw is addressed.
If it's something that just cannot be fixed, then the market will correct until it finds equilibrium.
Yes, you're absolutely right. It's subjective. But the neat thing is, I get to use my own stake to decide what I think is good.
Can someone buy stake, then post jibberish and upvote it? Absolutely. They are at risk of other people downvoting it. For me, I like to mitigate that risk by at least considering what others might view as good content.