Hey everyone, this post has been rattling around in my brain for quite some time, and I finally got around to finishing it. I think I've really distilled my thoughts on this subject, and it's an important one, as it in a way forms an underlying foundation of my own viewpoint. This post is a bit of a follow up in my series of "thought provoking posts", the last being Which came first, the Engagement or the Reward? if you haven't read that one yet.
So, lets dive right in, I hope you enjoy!
The Double Spending Problem
If you don't already know, the "Double Spending Problem" is one of the fundamental problems with digital systems, and is the raison d'être of blockchains. In digital systems, if you have a piece of data (such as a song from your favourite artist stored as an mp3 file), and you sent it to your friend Alice, there is nothing stopping you from also sending it to your friend Bob. While this has caused an amazing explosion of the internet in popularity akin to the printing press's ability to distribute content quickly and reliably, it has an unfortunate downside when you want to transfer something that you don't ever want to be duplicated. For example, if you want to send Alice the deed to your house, you most certainly don't want Bob to see it and claim that the house is now his. And when you boil that down to a value system, or a monetary system, you want to be able to transfer value without it being able to be duplicated in the same way in which all other digital content is.
Bitcoin was one of the first implementations to really address the "double spending problem" of value on a large scale. We have already had tools like cryptography for a long time before Bitcoin, and (sometimes people in crypto forget or don't know this...) we have also had distributed consensus for decades before Bitcoin. The real novelty that Bitcoin provided was that is was an implementation designed from the ground up to prevent "double spending", by using cryptographic proof of work to achieve a single state consensus of an accounts transaction history in a global ledger.
Nowadays, there's several token systems that throw out the blockchain in favour of different approaches. For an academic, I was totally expecting this to happen: we know of other ways to do distributed consensus, so it was only a matter of time before the other options were tried. The IOTA Tangle is one of the most commonly known systems in the community, but more are getting popular, including work being done on the Hashgraph design, and one of my new favourites, the already fully functional zero-fee DAG block lattice, Raiblocks. All of these systems still solve the "double spending problem", using one mechanism or another to achieve distributed consensus.
Let's dig further into the problem. An important facet with the prevention of double spending in a currency or reward system, is actually also the inability to double spend "coinbase" (instantiation) rewards. That is to say, if you were to create a coinbase transaction (for example, you solved the Bitcoin proof of work and produced a block) which mints coins into existence, it is fundamentally important that you can not re-use this transaction and mint yourself some more coins. No, you only get a mining reward once, and then you need to work on a new one. This way, the system is provably fair: the inflation rate (or token production rate) is consistent, reliable, and can be determined in advance. Tokens cannot be duplicated, and they cannot be spent twice.
So what's this all on about, and how does this relate to Steemit? Yes, don't fret, the Steem blockchain is just as secure as any other.
But, I am here to tell you why Steemit has in fact not solved the double spending problem in it's entirety.
The Double Spending of Value
On Steemit, we have this unique concept of "Proof of Brain". The majority of the rewards are not minted into existence by miners, but are rather distributed to the community by way of the reward pool. If you think about it abstractly, it is a unique and amazing system. You produce something of value (an interesting post), and you get some reward based on a multitude of factors, and in return you recieve tokens that represent value. This is an abstraction of the "Proof of Brain" system that Steemit has designed.
However, on Steemit, there is nothing immediately stopping you from double spending your Proof of Brain "work". On a blockchain, time moves forward only, the distributed consensus knows you cannot double spend Proof of Work that you created, so you can only ever get that reward once. On Steemit, it is all too common to duplicate your "work", and be rewarded twice. This can come in many forms. As the most obvious example, you might repost something you posted on Steemit a month ago, and perhaps claim "it is now reaching a new audience". If that repost gets a new value, you just double spent successfully.
On the extreme, we can see even worse behaviour. Imagine if on Bitcoin, as soon as a miner produced a block, you could send out the same block and recieve the same reward that the miner did. How crazy would that be? The blockchain simply wouldn't work. Well, on Steemit, there is fundamentally nothing stopping someone from taking a successful trending post, and posting the same thing, and getting a reward for it.
There are a few places where we run into a morally grey area, specifically when cross-posting. Imagine, if you wrote an article for a news site, and they paid you for it. Or you wrote an article for your personal blog that is hosted outside of Steemit, where you receive ad revenue. You may have even done work for someone pro-bono (in which case, the value you are receiving is not monetary, but social — such as the case of an artist doing pro-bono work in exchange for exposure), and had it utilized somewhere in the real world or on the internet. In all of these examples, you have already spent your "Proof of Brain" and received some form of value in return. The value you received was outside the Steemit blockchain, so it may seem ok to double-spend your “Proof of Brain” (or in other terms, "intellectual property”) by posting your work and also receiving value for it from Steemit.
However, this means that you would be receiving value twice for the same piece of work — this is like if a novelist sold the same book to two publishers and didn’t tell them. Imagine if that happened in the real world. It would be a disaster, right? It’s both the morally correct thing to do and common courtesy to let someone know if they are buying an exact duplicate of a piece of work. So if both publishers were told that they were buying the same book and were fine with it, then there’s no problem. The issue only arises when both value-adding parties believe they are buying an original work when they’re not.
So with this in mind, let’s examine a situation where you sell an article to a news site, but also let them know that you will post it on Steemit. And when you post it online, you let people know that they can also find the article on the news site. Since both value-adding parties involved (the news site and Steemit readers) are aware of the double-spend of your “Proof of Brain,” then they can make an informed decision about how much value they want to give you. No harm, no foul — as long as everyone involved is aware of what’s going on. In practice, this just translates into letting people know when your post can also be found elsewhere. This is the correct way to go about cross-posting.
Distributed Intellectual Consensus
Hopefully by now I have convinced you that, unlike blockchain "Proof of Work", where the distributed consensus prevents you from double spending "Work" implicitly and as part of the system, the Steemit "Proof of Brain" has no built in mechanism to prevent double spending of the "Brain". So how do we actually prevent double spending of ideas?
While the Bitcoin system is proactive in that the transaction will be rejected immediately, right now, the only system we have is retroactive. The only way to reject value going towards a double spend, is for the community to retroactively remove the value on that transaction. This is a round-about way of saying that the post must be downvoted to remove the reward. Upon this, the transaction in a sense was not rejected, but rather simply not rewarded.
This method is what I would call "Distributed Intellectual Consensus". In this system, all actors must make an informed decision, and reject double spends of value. In order to make an informed decision, we use can investigate, consider reputation, use tools, and use many other methods to help identify if something is indeed a double spend or not, or has otherwise earned value. Eventually, we can come to a distributed conclusion on the value of the post.
This, as you can imagine, brings me into talking about @cheetah. When it really comes down to it, this problem is exactly why @cheetah exists, and why I created her. It is a tool to help identify if a post is (potentially) something has is being attempted to be spent twice. It's not perfect, and it's not 100% accurate (its actually about 99.8% accurate -- in a metric of how many posts are false positives -- according to my calculations), but it is one of many tools that we can use to help critique a post. The idea in this post is precisely why I created her, and this is why I believe she is so necessary.
But note, on Steemit, not everyone evaluates and votes on every post. While this would allow us to have a true, complete democratic (by stake) view of a posts "worth", what really happens is that we get a sampled version of this. Only a select sample of users view a post, and therefore it is up to them to determine the validity of it. With a tool like @cheetah, and a group like @steemcleaners, it becomes more feasible to evaluate efficiently. Just like how Delegated Proof of Stake improves regular PoS by delegating the responsibility, we can use systems like @cheetah and @steemcleaners in order to help evaluate a post. But we still need users to help us too, by reporting questionable posts and even taking action whenever possible, and therefore I encourage everyone to take these problems seriously.
So that was my ramble. And yes, this is strictly my own personal viewpoint on Steemit, and the "Proof of Brain" system. It's subjective, and I'd always love to hear the opposing view to refine how I think about my own views.
So, let me leave you with this parting "ultimatum" of an idea, and let me know what you think in the comments below:
If you believe the Bitcoin blockchain would not work if miners could spend the reward of blocks as many times as they would like, you should also believe the same of the rewards given to Steemit posts.
Like Cheetah and Steemcleaners, and want them to stick around? Like what I do for Steemit? Please vote for me as a witness here!
Very cool discussion.
I do find a slight possible flaw in your thinking when comparing to the bitcoin blockchain. The bitcoin blockchain has a set amount of rewards created per block. Replaying a block creation would change the inflation rate of the currency itself which would be a very serious thing. In this DPOS system, the 3 second block production is trustworthy and unchanged, regardless of how many double spends of content happen. To me, that's an important distinction. To me, there are two levels. The first level creates the token and that's the really important one that should not be possible to "double spend" or it changes the fundamental economics of the token. On a second layer, we have the proof of brain distribution of the rewards pool. Ideally, yes, we want to avoid double spends here as well, but I don't think it's at the same level of concern as a block production which creates new tokens out of nothing.
As I was reading through this, I was reminded of a post I voted for recently which was a copy of a post which was vendetta flagged to $0 by a whale. It was a valuable post (IMO) and deserved a portion of the rewards pool and since the original version was flagged to $0 for irrational reasons (IMO), I was happy to vote it up. To me, it's an example of how all value is subjective. In that case, I was happy to support it because the author disclosed the duplication (and the reasons for it) and the post was personally valuable to me.
That reminds me of a post I did last year: Why You Should Care About Plagiarism and Fair Use. From that perspective, it's about determining who in the community is a good, trustworthy actor, and who is not. If someone republishes super valuable content, I'm okay with rewarding it if it's new for me and I know this person isn't purposely trying to scam anyone such as reposting something which was supposed to be exclusive content elsewhere.
From a certain perspective, every time a movie plays in the theater, they are double spending the original work. It's not about some labor theory of value, more about who is willing to subjectively assign a value to the exchange in that moment and pay for it.
Good analysis on the blockchain comparison, and you are right: in this sense it's not creating new tokens, it's purely about the distribution. The creation is secure, but the ethical dilemma remains.
Not exactly. You paid for the ticket (I hope) and some of the money goes to the people who created it. You are an informed purchaser: you know that you are buying something meant for mass consumption and that other people are going to view it.
The example that resonates with me more is the artwork example. If you create a painting, and sell it to someone under the assumption that it was the only painting of it's kind, the purchaser would be pretty unhappy if they find out that you are actually mass producing the exact same painting. The purchaser would feel cheated (and rightly so) as they thought the value that they bought was unique.
Most of my point in this post boils down to the problem of being an informed purchaser, or an informed voter. You may change your voting behaviour if you knew it was a copy paste job, or if it was a steemit exclusive.
I agree fully. The issue is fraud. If people are acting fraudulently, that lowers value for the whole network.
"There are a few places where we run into a morally grey area, specifically when cross-posting. Imagine, if you wrote an article for a news site, and they paid you for it."
Yes, but it's also very common for a publisher to buy limited rights, for instance first electronic rights, and those vary depending on the publisher. Otherwise we'd never get anthologies in science fiction. I agree that disclosure of those terms are important, and the key to avoiding conflict of interest.
In my case, my IGMS columns have a one-year blackout period before I can re-post them. I have so far only posted links back to them, because I want to support the magazine that supports me, and Steemit offers little friction to linking to an outside source. But because IGMS doesn't do much graphically with its website, I could totally see reposting them here (after one year) with linked drawings and photos. It would make no difference to the letter of our agreement, but I would want to add value on the second platform.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=_index
Congratulations @anyx, this post is the second most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Hero account holder (accounts that hold between 10 and 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Hero account holders during this period was 311 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $6235.46. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Interesting post. You're calling attention to technical concerns, but also some ethical concerns as well. Right now, it is all too easy to exploit the system and "double-reward" yourself by reposting your old work. And to be honest, I wouldn't be interested in doing that, but plenty of people would have no problem with it! There is an ethical dimension to all of this, and it will be a challenge to reel in our darker inclinations that all human beings have.
It seems more likely that we will generate technical solutions, rather than convince everyone to act ethically. So you are wise to approach the problem from that angle.
While I am very new here, I already can see how I will potentially lose out on a lot of rewards if I refrain from using "vote for vote" or "follow for follow" tactics. But I really want to follow and vote for people that I feel deserve it! I've been fascinated by the ethical choices the platform makes us make, but you're making me realize that there are still fundamental technical issues to address too.
Steemit really is the Wild West of the internet right now, but I am happy to see that there are people like you out there that are trying to implement changes that improve the system overall.
Thanks for posting.
As a new user I do not see this as an issue. It would only be a double-reward if you upvoted yourself on the old post and then upvoted yourself on the new post. That is the only way an Author can "Double-Reward" themselves. If I saw an Author post 4 months ago, and then the same post today, and I remembered that post, then is it not for me to decide if I want to reward the post again? I mean face it 4 months ago my vote was worthless, $0.001 if that. Today at full power it is $0.070, I now have the chance to give a semi-Real Reward to them. Why should steemit be different than any other type of publishing company. If you were to go into any music store or any place that sells music I am sure you can buy a copy of Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" Album. If you went into a bookstore I am sure you can buy a new copy of Anne McCaffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern. Why should I view steemit differently. The reason you can still buy those items is marketing to a new audience. I hope that steemit continues to get new audience members.
So in conclusion I myself do not see reposting information from the past as a bad thing.
The marshmallow experiment comes to mind. I think that a lot of people using the former tactics are in the camp of taking the one marshmallow. The quick, easy, and gratifying reward, but the one that turns off followers. Whereas what you want to do is wait, play the longer game, and build up a base: and in the long run, get a greater or more consistent reward. Two marshmallows.
I've said this for the past year. :) I wonder if it will actually change, as solutions (if they exist) certainly don't appear to be trivial.
Good point. I studied psychology in university, so I am familiar with that experiment. F4F or V4V is a quick fix, whereas building a real fan base is a long-term challenge.
Yes, the solutions that need to be generated are not simple. There will perhaps be more complexity and exploitation before there is clarity.
Thanks for the post and the replies.
Repost that consistently repeats value creation is likely because its reaching NEW readers and the content is still the same and good. So its getting to its true value, as most people don't curate the same post twice.
Hello @ anyx. Just browsing through, and checking out the witness that I voted for. Happy new year.
@anyx this is a very important point. Thanks for making this noticed by many more users. Perhaps there are developers lie to thinking of new ways to continue improving this systems, with bots like cheetah and I am sure the algorithms will be better every day, and they will be more efficient to get even better results. Upvoted!
Regards, @gold84
I think SMT's have amazing potential for artists and content creators to form communities that target readers and potential clients. Whether you are an amateur or a professional. The communities themselves will have more control over content, membership and rewards.
And.. I didn't put in my original thought...
This would allow communities to define their own payouts. With a better UI and the ability to control certain aspects such as membership to keep out the spam & scammers I see no reason content couldn't receive rewards years later.
Something that would be a nightmare here on steemit.com.
Totally agree. If only communities could come faster. :)
agree!
@anyx -Wow - you do make an interesting point about Steemit having not completely solved the double payment issue. I guess the creators depended on the moral values being upheld by content posters. However, you are right, the blockchain, by itself does not prevent double spending that can be caused by re-posting by authors or plagiarism by some authors of old Steemit posts etc. In fact, when the Steemit interface had some issues couple of months ago, many Steemians ended up double posting content (they hit submit twice because the interface showed transaction error first time) and the exact same post got published and paid twice!
Thank you for the interesting treatise on double spending issue. Upvoted
Regards,
@vm2904
This is an excellent example. If people realize that they can do this, and it gets rewarded, it might start to happen on purpose, and more often. We really don't want that!
great post. very interesting and thought provoking. what about re-purposing elements of content, re-contextualising and juxtaposing with new ideas?
there is a train of thought which says nothing is original. Although I agree with the sentiment of this article. let's say I posted a picture of a rainy day and wrote about what it's like to experience a rainy day. the image is my original one and so are the words.
perhaps later, I would like to post a curation of my work on the theme of water. is is fair and justified to then include my rainy day picture within the post? it's re-contextualised and I add new thoughts and words about my relationship towards water as subject matter. the previous post is juxtaposed against an new background, it's contextually sensitive. I don't think it's a morally grey area in this case. It's intellectually asking a question about what originality means and how strictly is it applied if we have diverged sufficiently from the original purpose of preventing double spend.
I believe in the normal world double spending is very common, accepted and a regular feature of life. proof of brain simply throws up a new question, what is originality, how can it be defined? and this article has made me think about what that means on steemit, in art and in life. Well done you crafty goat.
Th@anyx & A Merry Christmas. great work !
Good point. Where is the line? It will be difficult to draw one.
In my comment above, I mentioned how this problem is not only technical, but ethical as well. You seem to be picking up on the same idea in your comment.
Maybe we have to use our own discretion in the examples you provided. We of course know that a straight copy/paste of an old post seems ridiculous, and we have to begin to make our own ethical considerations as we walk back from the most flagrant abuses of the system.
Overall, I feel there is little issue with re-purposing when you have put effort into reworking the piece into something "original" again.
copy and pasting posts is one thing. Steemit's proof of brain is most interesting because it has evolved directly out of social media where ideas were rewarded with likes and popularity which meant no physical reward except for the most popular by way of corporate sponsorship, similar to top athletes. steemit takes the centralised (zuckerberg gets all the cash) model and distributes it. I find as a steemian with genuinely original content. ( I am a creative professional) with over 20 years of experience, my content doesn't get rewarded commensurate with it's merit. I see total crap making hundreds of dollars all time and I never score that highly. There is another force at work here and it's to do with the power of social networks and currency. In the normal centralised model, there is the opportunity for success through virality. However virality often takes more than seven days to achieve. Steemit will evolve a virality function (the ability to earn past seven days) and then it will reward more fairly content with artistic and intellectual merit. Merry Christmas. On the flipside, my meagre rewards can be traded for their real value with an extra twist to the equation. swap the tokens for ones which increase in value faster than the platform rewards. This is most satisfying. It's like finding pennies and turning them into more. magic beans indeed said Jack's mother.
@outerground, you're totally right. Something else is at play here.
It is interesting how Steemit reflects society to a degree. Those with monetary capital and social capital can exploit the system. The most talented people aren't necessarily getting rewarded. Steemit, in its current state, certainly isn't a meritocracy.
Now, that isn't to say I am even bashing the platform. It's growing and maturing, and these things are bound to emerge. But I do hope those aspects of Steemit can be worked out in the long run.
Merry Christmas to you too! And good luck on Steemit in the New Year.
thanks Chris, from a fellow Chris.. you have a new follower. I too am fascinated with steemit. I've been here every day since may and I certainly have got a lot out of it. It will evolve and it is full of talented people. Enjoy Christmas and I look forward to reading your posts. You'll soon be up past 50 rep ! ps thanks @anyx for the introduction
Thanks for the encouragement! Us "Chrises" have to stick together. I look forward to seeing your content as well. We'll talk more soon!
There's been some good experimental work on this issue, showing how social information alters our valuations.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@plotbot2015/experimental-proof-that-the-quality-of-your-posts-does-matter-some
Thank you so much for posting this @anyx, because it makes me understand your perspective much better.
As a creator, I view it a little different. I make content and change parts of it for different platforms that have different audiences. I might post the same piece of content on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn, but with a slightly different intro or tekst, tailored to the audience of the platform I'm posting on. Often (not always), these are pieces of intellectual content which provide value for my following. Some posts score better on one platform than another, sometimes I don't post the content on a certain platform because I don't think it will provide the proper value.
When it comes to double spending I trust the system. If duplicate content is continuously posted, your fanbase will stop actively following you intensely cross-platform, because it is the same. Also, if you duplicate an item from a news website, without making minor changes using language and examples that fit the Steemit community, I will not have the same power. And if the content is good, why shouldn't the auteur be rewarded twice. It doubles the exposure for both the creator and Steemit as a platform, without letting the creator choose which platform has sole ownership to the content.
For me, taking away the opportunity for crossposting would mean that Steemit as platform puts the creator under pressure to make content for one specific platform, which 1. provides us with less freedom (sometimes resulting in less creativity), 2. puts Steemit in a position of power as sole owner of exclusive content.
Now, don't get me wrong. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It decreases opportunism and often results in better quality of content. But it also runs the risk of losing good creators (because you made them choose) and the position of power (which goes against the decentralization of power, which the blockchain strive towards) might make Steemit a slow bureaucratic overvalued commercialized powerhouse that bases it findings and decisions on research of a small intellectual elite.
I'm all against copyright infringement, especially intellectual property theft. But in the end, everything is a remix and getting sanctioned for remixing my own intellectual property, because I might earn twice, is no fun.
Hope this perspective provides value to you. I'm very open to discussing this topic further in the future.
I think you might have missed this part of my post:
In other words, it's like you say and it's up to the audience and what platform may like. But my point is that the audience needs to be informed.
Hi @anyx,
Thanks for replying. You indeed covered the issue in the original post. However, I know Steemit is still in beta, but I don't fully agree with the 'No harm, no foul'. For instance, my first cross post got an immediate response from cheetah linking to the original article I wrote.
Now, I'm not complaining. I don't mind writing exclusive content just for Steemit. But in this case you state double spending of your "Proof of Brain" is ok.
In practice, cheetah as the first comment on your post on Steemit does feel like a foul and does feel like harm to your credibility. It hurts a little extra because people just see a cheetah comment on your post and they most likely won't click on the link to see that it is actually a link to a article you have written.
Oh.. and yes, I'm very open towards guidelines for citing your own work.
"Everything is a remix." Great series by Kirby Ferguson. http://www.everythingisaremix.info
Yes indeed. Thanks for sharing. Very useful video.
Double-spending already occurs in the world. For example, an author can publish his work in one country in a certain language, then publish it in a foreign country/language with a different language and publisher. This happens already with books, movies, or any other copyrighted material. Even with movies on Blu-ray, they have different distributors across the world, even for the same language content. So I don't think it's a question of ethics to notify every publisher/distributor if you previously printed your work elsewhere. If you're the author, you hold the rights to your work and do whatever you wish with it. The same principle applies on Steemit. Many bloggers earn from other websites, social media, ads, Youtube channels, etc. Steemit is just another media where they can distribute their work and get rewarded. In other words, the distribution isn't exclusive to one place, unless explicitly specified by publishing contracts (a book for example).
And finally, I've seen several users gently get warned by @cheetah or sometimes flagged by the @steemcleaners for works they own that was previously posted elsewhere. It's difficult to investigate and determine the validity of claims to 100%, perhaps that's where the ethics may come into play. Is it an impostor stealing someone else's work, or is it truly the person authoring the work.
There are a couple of challenges that I think the Steemit platform will face as more users come aboard. One is what you've described - essentially that the system has built in incentives to repost and no way of penalizing that sort of behavoir. Another is the large amount of spam content, again without any mechanism to control or penalize it. These things will need to be addressed by the devs or we will end up with a network that contains more noise than signal. But we are still in Beta and I have confidence that improvements will be made.
@Srajwani, you're reminding me of something important. I forget that Steemit is still in beta. We expect an awful lot from a platform that isn't even close to its final form yet. I forget that we are in the beta stage, because I'm already quite impressed by the community and the system itself. But I suppose it will be awhile before the kinks are worked out.
That's a very interesting way of looking at it. I'll have to give it some thought. Off-hand: The key distinction between copying and spending is that when something is spendable, only one copy should ever exist, and only one person can utilize it at a time. In contrast, there are many legitimate reasons for copying some forms of content. For example, I've heard a rule of thumb that in marketing, you need to get something in front of people seven times before they will respond to it. One pass through the feed simply isn't enough.
Ideally, I suppose you'd have one copy, and it would pay out for every bit of value that it creates throughout its entire lifetime. With the seven day payout window, though, that's probably not achievable. Is Steem's job to measure the lifetime value of a post, or just its value during a particular time period? I'm not promoting this perspective, but if it's a point in time snapshot, then it could be argued that there's nothing wrong with reposting one's own content. When the flags outweigh the upvotes, the author knows it's time to retire the content.
It's going to get even harder to recognize duplication when some app comes along that uses encryption or some other sort of encoding before posting on the block chain. I assume that's just a matter of time.
I didn't make the connection to double-spending, but I posted a somewhat related article a couple weeks ago.
Haha great brain exercise and because this is a though provoking post i will give a counterargument instead, yes what you describe as double posting a content really sounds an awful lot like double expending, but there is a big difference that i want you to consider, in bitcoin double spending is prevented when the nodes come to one consensus and pick which one is the real transaction and which one is the fake, Steem has the same mechanism to prevent such double expending.
But a post or as we call it a proof of brain, have two cases, the first one would be that, when it was published for the first time it did not reached its full potential, meaning a certain group of people saw it but not all of the people on Steemit, obliviously the second time it gets published it would be another group of people that approved and give it value to the post or proof of brain that it did not had before.
The second case would be, when people that saw the post in the first time it was posted feel that they did not rewarded the author enough for it the first time around, be it because the user was low on voting power, or low SP, and now they want to to give the author something more for his work.
As the extreme cases of abuse of users happen, that gray area of the "permissible" gets smaller and smaller, should we punish everyone that puts the same set of seven words together? o the one that post five times the same content in a week. Like always everything is about lines people draw in the sand .
Great post anyx, i think the more people know and think how they should approach double posting the better, of course, so we can reach a general consensus and draw lines in the sand, this kind of problem can be resolve by talking about them, and this post got me talking and overall thinking about it.
It's a good counter argument. This kind of touches on something I'd like to see on steemit: the ability to have longer term rewards. A few ways I could see this happen; for example, imagine you could refresh a post in such a way that only new people who didn't vote on the last one could vote on the new one. In a way, that means only the new audience could give you a reward. There's various reasons why this can't work in the steem system, but I digress... it would be interesting.
Allowing votes to be counted for reward no matter the time it was posted would be the logic thing to do, after all your work is still being used, shouldn't you be reward for it? Lets face it, without enough "screening" time, be a new user that have never seen the post, or people that did not got the chance in the seven day grace period, the author will have to make the same post each week over and over again, to get something of the work he has already done before, this is a bad way of building thing if you have to do it all over again each week (There is also the followers earned for the post, but this leaving this to chance and it will not work out in the long run)
How much time is enough? If one people having all the money is the problem, then, lets go the socialist route, after a seven day period, each vote submitted to a post, will go to everyone, that is to say, each post will be Steemit-humanity legacy for everyone. That would make, that the more post there are, the better, so we can start building something, everyone will be reward for it (and if you want to, you can add a few conditions, so everyone is not a freeloader, you are free to so), in the long run humans will benefit from the work of past humans (like we always do). (this is just an idea, and everyone is free to give their own ideas, i am just using in how the patented work is used, option b, everyone can used it to their benefit, but this don't resolve the issue what the author would have do next week)
Merry Christmas everyone.
It's an interesting post, but I don't know if the problem is as bad as you might think. Of course, people sell intellectual property multiple times frequently. For example:
I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. Of course, I understand it's not ethical to copy/pasta something you've been paid to develop by a client, but it's not so unethical to use an idea multiple times in different ways and on different platforms.
Anyway, thanks for this insightful post. I think Steemians should consider your points, but I'm just adding my .02 cents (in SBD, of course).
I think you might have missed an element. For the book example, I made an edit to my post that tries to clear that up: it's not about selling it for someone else to consume, it's more about selling it to multiple publishing systems. As on Steemit, you do not pay to read a post in the same way you would pay to read a book. For software development, you don't sell the print function you use to someone else, you sell whatever product you built, and that may include open source libraries, but the open source libraries are not what you're selling: you're selling the specific pieces that you wrote.
p.s. I gave you my first witness vote ever. I really didn't understand that whole thing because I'm new, but I think you do a lot to improve the platform, plus you took time to reply to me. :)
Same here. You're the kind of person I want witnessing.
Right, and I totally agree with your core topic. I guess that's why your original and well-thought-out post did so well. When I write for clients, we do have a plagiarism checker to keep us from even accidentally reusing our words or anybody else's words. Re-using ideas is a bit tougher to police and maybe impossible to avoid sometimes. I was just thinking out loud a bit, and I appreciate you coming by to clarify.
A bit of though provoking though I won't say I understand if 100%.
FYI, there's a typo in the 3rd of 4th last para: therefor should be therefore
Merry Christmas :-）
To me this is two very different things. It is not one person taking from the reward pool. It is a group of people giving to that person a reward. The Author of a post demands nothing from the people. The miner demands from the people payment. two very different things.
I like what @cheetah, and steemcleaners, and you do. But reading your post and thinking about it, all that would be allowed on steemit are pictures of peoples cats, that have not been posted elsewhere on the internet. Reading your post I got the feel that if it is published or posted anywhere, ie:Internet, newspaper, video, magazine, or newspaper or anywhere else that stuff gets "Published", it would not be allowed to receive a vote for a Reward on Steemit. sorry, that was how I read and interpreted it.
Nope, it's the first: that's how the reward pool works. The second is more of a tipping system or a patreon style system, but that's not steem. There's a limited reward pool supply, so if you take from it (and you are taking from it if you didn't choose to decline rewards), then you have reduced the reward from everyone else who is also electing to take from the reward pool.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm more concerned with the value given under the assumption that it is written for Steemit. If you read my post I address this when I talk about crossposting. It's fine as long as the voter or purchaser is making an informed decision.
Authors, Content Creators, or posters, are not telling anyone they need to vote for them. Most of the people under a 65 Rep, have no footer asking for votes, resteems, or comments. So you are saying that by the simple act of not declining a payout they are taking from the Reward pool? No people are rewarding them for their content, they are not taking anything that was not freely given to them.
You can not ask people to come to steemit where they "might" be rewarded, then treat them like a thief in the night when people decide that yes I want to reward that content!
I am guessing that is pretty much aimed at published Authors that are "Serialising" their published works for steemit. Those authors all (at least the ones I have run across) have links to their books on Amazon, or where they are published elsewhere. What they are saying is, You can read it here for free exclusively on steemit, you will not find it on facebook, google whatever, or reddit style places, here and available for purchase on Amazon. Stating it is serialised for steemit is not "Crossposting".
But yes I know there are a lot of sour grapes out there, the new users of steemit are frustrated with the actions of some early steemit adopters, (2016), and how there is a seeming double standard. I am amazed every time I see someone with a rep over 60, downvoting a new user because they asked for a follow, when the 60REP person has a footer stating upvote,follow,resteem. There are much larger issues than "regulating" when a post is considered to have been cross posted. We need cheetah bot and steamcleaners for plagiarism and flag abuse. not to regulate what can and can not be posted because it is posted on another site the Author owns.
"not to regulate what can and can not be posted because it is posted on another site the Author owns"
As far as steemcleaners scope is atm, we have no problem with someone posting their work that they published in other places, as long as they confirm the authorship to prevent idendity theft or plagiarism.
If they recycle their own older content, they can still be auto caught by cheetah though.
"Most of the people under a 65 Rep, have no footer asking for votes, resteems, or comments."
From my experience working for steemcleaners, it is rather the other way around.
New users and low rep users then to have those glitter, cookie cutter footers asking for resteems and follows, with loads of whale username tags spammed and shiny icons that often take up to 80% of their post content. They also spam posts with their trash comments with "nice", "interesting post", "please upvote me", etc.
Often, regualry fishing on bloggers who always reward every comment. There are whole farms by scammers that open tens of accounts (with little or not blog activity except some resteems) to just comment fish on these generous users.
When you go to trending page and check up posts there, you will notice that only handful may have such footers like "please resteem, follow, upvote".
Also, there is a difference between asking such things on your own post, in your blog, and going out there to spam comments with such crap as low rep and new users tend to do.
I dont see the problem of double spending in the form you describe it.
Lets say someone posts his own post a second time. Yes, he received upvotes for it at the first time already, but not from the same people - assuming that we dont have a lot of steemians here suffering from memory loss.
So those who upvote the second time posting, have not double voted for the same content. They only didn't see the first time post and missed to upvote it then.
That situation even is in effect if someone steals the content from someone elses post. That being said, it s cheap and unethical to do that of course (and a possible copyright violation). But even then, the people who dont know that its stolen content and like and upvote it, have not double spend on the same content.
Thank you, someone who gets it. There is always a new audience on steemit. It grows in numbers everyday. You as an Author put something out 5 months ago, lets say, and you were new to steemit, and barely had a following, in order to build a following you put what you think of as your best foot forward. Now after 5 months you have a following, is it really and truly unethical, for you to re-issue your best song so your new audience can enjoy hearing it? I think not. Most people are smart enough to see when a poster is just trying to game the system, it is called having an ounce of brain.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people should repost on a regular basis. It could start to bore your followers and thus damage your rewards, even that of the new posts.
All I'm saying is, that we dont get rewarded by Steemit for hitting the post button, but by users upvoting to content of a post. And I dont think that many will upvote the same content several times.
I dont really see the big issue in this. There are a lot more pressing cases of system abuse - and even outright fraud - going on on Steemit, which do much more damage to the community and the reward pool.
I agree, we are all semi-intelligent people.
Hi @anyx, have you seen my idea about @cheetah bot? - https://steemit.com/cheetah/@rafalski/how-to-make-cheetah-better-don-t-tag-my-content-proposal
The more you want to share something, the more you want a bigger reward out of it (not money in specific). If there is no bigger reward, there is no incentive.
Vote hoarding on the other hand is an issue, since you can get a reward even with zero effort. Many are spamming comments with no real value, hoping for votes. Which is why comments should not be getting as big rewards as vlogs/threads. I swear, I got twenty times more out of comments than I did out of my topics.
Very useful article! I hadn’t even thought about the concept of double spending!
interesting indeed
Very nice post. Did not think about this thoroughly. It did cross my mind though. Thanks!
Sometimes you need to be super wise to prevent a double spending
I've been struggling even I write original work but, thanks to cheetah for making my work doubtful!
Here is the link to my post: https://steemit.com/poetry/@asadullah/the-great-mystic-poetic-soul-jalalud-din-rumi
it just commented a facebook ID link, it's really unfortunate, it just ruined all my reputation, thank you for this !
check it out and do take care next time !
🤔👍
Here you hit it good . double money serving two masters at a time , in which one is expected to slake in life .spending wise is the keep. Thanks for sharing
Very good thinking and a great tool. Thank you for sharing knowledge through this post. Good luck always for you @anyx.
anyxMy favorite friend Onek is a beautiful post
Very well described, I never thought about double spend as you have described it here on steemit. Steemit really is like proof of brain lol
And it turns out I remain faithful to make you as my witness, since I joined in steemit. Always be the best, and proud of your beloved cat.
Merry Christmas! Smiles and joy to every day of your life ))
Interestingl, I was always of the impression that steemit had active bots constantly on the look for plagiarism and other forms of foul play.
Seems the system is liability to a number of abuse if nothing is done
There is something you did not factor into all of this. Not everything posted on Steemit is posted to make money. I often post items simply to make people laugh or to lift someone's spirits. About a year ago, I started a meme site specifically for this purpose. To give myself and others a supply of light hearted, funny, happy memes they could use without worrying about giving me credit (and yes I make 100% sure I have the right to use all photos, without giving credit, if I do not make or take them myself ). But what right does anyone have to tell me I can't post my own work because it is also available on my website and/or it is possible it has already been posted by dozens of people on other social media sites?
I think part of the problem here is there is more than one definition of what Steemit is or should be, being thrown around the internet. Some see it as a social media site, some see it as a way to make money, some are using it as a weapon against others they disagree with (for any reason). I have yet to figure out what the creators saw it as being, possibly because I have yet to figure out who the creators are.
To limit Steemit to 100% unique work stifles the social media aspect. Without the social media aspect, it turns Steemit into just another job, being forced into doing this the way THE BOSS (whomever that is) says to do it or get downvoted.
To take your analogy a step further, sharing information that has already been shared and getting paid for it, is no different than a fast food company taking their name sake burger, slapping some lettuce and tomato on it and calling it deluxe. They not only sell the burger with a little extras, they sell it at a higher price the second time around.
Computer manufacturers develop a computer, then produce an more advanced version. Game developers make a light version for free then sell upgrades inside the game and later develop a fully paid version.
The exact same intellectual property is used and reused in every aspect of society and big business gets paid for it over and over again every day. Why is it so bad for individuals to do it?
Why is it not good enough to let the users of the information decide if it provides them with value?
Obviously, there will be people who try to take it to the extreme and take advantage of it. But any SYSTEM you develop to deal with it must be smart enough to tell the difference. I have already been "called on the carpet" and threatened with downvotes, by someone who promoted themselves as a some sort of Steemit Police. All because I did not write in the post that I made my own graphic.
At what point do we realize that the number of new people who see this stuff and decide to leave Steemit, is simply not worth the few pennies someone might be making on reposting the same information.
There is nothing wrong with allowing the people on Steemit to police themselves using their votes and downvotes to do it. But when individuals start taking on the role of a governing body and choosing who and what they want to allow... It just feels too much like you are trying to turn Steemit into another FB and Twitter.
Then decline rewards.
Why should I? There is no way for me to know if someone clicked a link on my website and then saw the exact same meme on Steemit. There is also no way for me to POLICE the public to ensure every one of them also did the same. Why is it bothering you so much that someone might make me 1/4 cent on Adsense and another 1/4 cent on Steemit?
Let's take this one step further. I have seen several other similar (not exact) posts on Steemit on basically the exact same topic (the original topic of this post). Each has their own little twist of course, but they are basically all taking about the same things, trying to come to a consensus on their view of how things should be done. Have you told them to decline rewards? If I have to police all of my posts to such extreme, shouldn't they have to police their own also? I don't think they should and I don't think I should have to either. All information is not static. It is not like taking an injection of medication, use once and the needle is useless. A body of information is added to, subtracted from, grown, expanded, tossed and kicked around with each person who sees it, taking what works for them from it. Why should you or anyone else tell me my memes have a limited life span? Even if every single person on Steemit sees my meme the first time it is posted, (that will never happen) does that render it incapable to brightening someones day a second time, weeks, months or even years later?
Plus, would you please explain to me what your position in Steemit is, what your title is? What authority do you have to tell me what I can and cannot post?
Unless the powers that be in Steemit have given you authority, you have access to the exact same mechanisms I have to control what is seen on Steemit. You can upvote, downvote, mute, or unfollow. But without additional authority from Steemit, I do give you power over me beyond what every person on Steemit has over every other person. I am doing NOTHING wrong. I am not breaking any rules on Steemit. I am not breaking any laws. I have never receive any type of notice from Steemit that I am doing something wrong.
In fact, the only people who have ever complained in any way are a couple of whales who have hundreds of times the steempower I do. Hmmm...
I think you are mistaken on several points:
So are you in favor of plagiarism? If you are not then I do not understand your complaints. Is it because you were called out for posting suspect content? If you were unjustly singled out it's more productive to address the specific incident instead of ranting about why @anyx and others are looking out for the well being of this platform.
If this is not your case then I don't see why you are complaining.
I am complaining because I have done nothing wrong and have been on the receiving end of people who think they have a right to tell me I do not have a right to post my own content. I make my own memes. I even write my own quotes to go on many of them. I write my own posts and most take 4 to 6 hours to write because I check and double check facts and figures. They pass Copyscape, so why am I being attacked?
Your question regarding plagiarism, has ZERO to do with anything I have posted and from my end looks like a good excuse for a big whale to pick on the little people who might one day be competition to them. I am watching people who spend hours of their time writing content to help teach others how to make money in crypto, losing literally hundreds of dollars because big whales decide it is cutting into their money too much so they use 40 some odd bots to downvote away every penny the person makes.
Actually, the only thing @anyx said to me was replying directly to my post and specifically told me I should not accept any payment for my posts. That is crazy and again appears to be a whale trying to shut down new people that could be a threat to their empire someday.
I have ZERO against preventing plagiarism in Steemit. But I have not seen a big problem with it. Sure a few people, most of whom barely speak English and could use someone to hold their hand and teach them. But I see a BIG problem with whales literally taking advantage of new people. Threatening them and using bots to downvote away the little money they earn on legitimate posts.
So far, I personally have not received a single downvote, but I have been threatened. Not because of plagiarism, but because they disagreed with what I wrote.
I know every post I make it 100% within Steemit rules. They are 100% within the laws of the United States. So exactly how should I take the attacks against me? Should I cower in a corner? Should I run and cry, leaving behind an opportunity to make a income that will help be keep my house? Or, should I speak up and say, THIS IS NOT RIGHT? I have done NOTHING to be attacked for.
According to Dictionary.com, Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
It has NOTHING to do with whether or not I make a meme that I post on my website and I or someone else posts it on Steemit. Memes are designed to be shared. But that is exactly what @anyx told me specifically I should not accept any money for.
As for your assumption I was called out for posting suspect content, show me where it happened. I have NEVER been given any proof anything I have posted is plagiarized and it will never happen. I have been building websites since 1995 and only once in all those years did I get a plagiarism complaint and it was on a guest post for one lousy sentence they did not reword to make it their own words.
As for being accused of ranting, you can now say I am ranting because I am pissed. Until now I was simply telling a different side of the story. You might not agree with what I said, but I still have a right to seeing things from a different perspective than you. But you have gone to making assumptions about my character and saying it in public with ZERO proof to back up your statements and you wonder why there are people who feel they are being attacked for no reason?
Down voting people should be a last resort. Down voting people from 40 some odd bots to wipe out $300+ of earnings should NEVER happen simply because you don't agree with someone.
It all boils down to the fact that it is causing new people to leave. They don't want to be caught up in the politics. Steemit will die without new people and there are people outside of Steemit already talking about they don't want to put up with it.
It is up to the whales to decide if they are going to clean up their own house before chasing off potential long term members.
I never made any asumptions about your character, I simply asked a question. If I offended you I apologize.
Relax, I really don't see why you are acting so defensive. I have never attacked you. I simply suggested that if a particular post is not meant to make money, opt to not make money. It's a pretty simple concept. I've done it before.
I also really don't see a point trying to argue with you, as you're clearly venting and have twisted my words.
Your reply is loaded with logical fallacies. A complete misunderstanding of reply with the simple observation.
You went to some defense mode with use of psychological projection.
Created whole essay out of simple answer.
It seems that this simple answer might have directed your psychological/intellectual dishonesty or paradox regarding declining rewards to simply prove that "Not everything posted on Steemit is posted to make money" by declining a reward.
If something is intended to be posted not for money, then money reward should be declined (in this case cryptocurrency reward).
It is that freaking simple.
Epic!
The insiders, stinc, et al, seem to only care about the people 'that count'.
They have had opportunity to choose, and they chose crapitalistically.
Chose the few over the many.
It is what it is, each day forward a little more control slips from their grasp.
Time will set this place to right, lets hope it happens before our time runs out.
#riseup!
This is grand breaking post.....post of the year....i won't have written it better myself.....the proof of brain is ur mental contribution and the reward for this is determined by factors that can't distribute it properly.
This has been a concern of mine for a while now. With our name on a post it should be copywrited. Is this true?
what an insight. very good read and i cannot agree more with your assertions.double spending is something very difficult to tackle as such we have moral standings to say no to it. thanks for sharing
Amazing article, @anyx. It does show how steemit is quite different from other blockchains and the way it's DPOS works. From what I've seen in my short time here, @cheetah and @steamcleaners is really what holds steemit.com together and allows quality content to stay afloat, instead of being buried by spam an plagiarism. So, thank you for that - your contribution is praised and much appreciated.
Hello,
I think there is no problem with "double spending" on Steem's "Proof of Brain".
Ideas are different from material things, because they can reproduce, and their originality and value DOES NOT DEPEND on their exclusivity.
The problem is securing the Copyright of each one and in the account of likes, views, votes.
Thats really alot of knowledge and of course Research !! I loved it personally !!
What are your feelings about people being able to make 'revisions' of their own work - this is standard in regular publishing - 2nd and 3rd editions in which you want to keep 80-90% the same but just update.
As far as I'm aware you can't do that on here without being caught by your bot! This could be problem for anyone who specializes in very narrow fields, and might legitimately want to re-post a refined and improved version of something a few years after the original, which is similar, yet better.
As you say, cutting down on plagiarism is a tough one, but thanks for the efforts!
I knew there was a reason I voted for you as witness! :D
This was a fantastic post- theory has always made more sense to me than practice, which often leaves me in the odd position of understanding a math concept just fine and being completely incapable of doing said math, as well as other similar situations. So articles like this that talk about the why behind concepts- in this case, blockchain- are right in my wheelhouse.
Well, cheetah bot upvotes doublespends...so how does it help exactly?
https://steemit.com/intro/@sponsor4cause/7w5xat-crowdfunding-required-please-make-it-viral
Agreed in some way but I do think we should allow some flexibility there too. Ideas and contents may be similar in one way or another, and may not be an intended plagiarism. Nevertheless, with the presence of @cheetah and @steemcleaners, they act as the supervising force for the community. I believe this is good enough to ensure no plagiarism. As for content creators duplicating their work, here is my 2 cents: https://steemit.com/steem/@kimzwarch/why-is-steem-giving-out-free-money-my-steem-adventure-2
This was a great read! Thanks, @anyx! I dont fully understand how Steemit works, but I think the analogy to bitcoin is flawed. From my understanding, Steemit rewards come from content creation. So i think the best analogy is to intellectual property laws. When viewed from that perspective, I think the true problem is not the reposting of content. In the end, the problem comes from the person voting on the reposted content.
Under U.S. Copyright law, the market determines the value of a copyright, for example the value of the rights to reproduce and sell a book. US Copyright law, however, has long recognized that the value of an artistic work is rarely known when that work is first created, so authors are given a "Termination" right, which is the right to revoke a prior grant of copyright ownership. The author can essentially take back the rights to the artistic work.
An author therefore, has another opportunity to monetize or profit from the resale of the rights in their artistic work. Moreover, the Termination rights of an author are so sacred that even an agreement by the author to not exercise its termination rights is not a valid waiver of those rights.
The underlying notion that an author should be able to recapture the value of their recognizes that other factors affecting the value of the work need time to materialize. In my opinion, this notion should not be ignored on Steemit. Unless Steemit provides a mechanism for authors to continue to reap the fruits of their works, then authors should be allowed - without sanction - to repost their old works. The market will dictate the value of subsequent posts.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the problem really arises when a Steemit user votes both on the original and reposted content. Although good intentioned Steemit users wouldnt vote on a repost when they both remember they voted on the original post and know that the content is a repost, this does create the risk of fraud, such as "shill" voting or other scams artificially boosting the value of the reposted content.
I offer two potential solutions: (1) require reposted content to contain a "NOTICE" indicating it is reposted so that both Steemit and Steemit users can identify reposted content, and (2) create a rule within Steemit that does not allow a user to vote on a repost when that voter has already voted on the original post.
Best,
Mike
Very nice post