I consider that it would be more fair to make the identical weight of vote, with a difference in quantity. The person, with 10 STEEM on the account can make 1 dollar vote a week. The person with 1000000 STEEM can make 100000 dollar vote a week. It will be fair. Also will allow to reward bigger number of authors.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
in this case we would have a fraud with dozens of bots that will be upvoting one "author" once a week - and giving him weekly $.
Let's say, I have 1000, or at least 300 different akks, that have 10 or whatever STEEM for 1$ hit.
All of them have a fake identification and some stupid posts to looks real - no spam hidden in their fake identety.
Also they're able to upvote twice a week to spread the power.
But all of them upvote me with their 1$ in different time till the end of the week.
So in the end, 1 of this bots that randomly chosen as the "author of the week" recive 300$
And you can cash it out or use it to improve your botnet, to have more profit in the next round or long term
No spam, but still a fraud
It is necessary to exclude the possibility of automated voting interesting idea was proposed by @desmonid https://steemit.com/steemit/@desmonid/idea-to-reduce-potential-for-bots
@jennamarbles If you don't mind, would you check my blog to get the other side of this debate? It boils down to these solutions to control bots don't work. Upvote bots are voting because they follow a tutorial and most of them make nothing, because they vote immediately instead of waiting 30 minutes for the cool down timer to finish.
This means someone is trying to learn to program and doesn't care about the monetary rewards. Give them something more lucrative to do that is bot appropriate such as detecting plagarism, identity theft and sock puppets would be a far better option.
Anyways click my name, check my last few blogs out, get both sides of the story and let me know what you think.
Thanks..
p.s. You linked Dan's response to me villifying bots, but didn't link my post that triggered it, if you would be so kind as to add the initial post from me, I would be appreciative. This way I don't have to chase down and explain myself over and over again because Dan misunderstood some things I said and I didn't catch his response until it was almost too late. So my final rebuttal is way the heck down at the bottom and buried by like 1000 other responses.
For example, in this article you can see the benefits and a great idea in conclusion.
And also pay an attention that the "enthusiasts" making a bots are usually step ahead of the guys trying to solve the problems after it already appears.
They are just have a plenty of time for their "creativity"
I am disturbed more that these boats break natural ranging of posts. It isn't remuneration. Thousands of other authors with their original content can't get in hot because of actions of boats.
Oh one more thing... This auto upvote bots you're worried about skewing things? The curation reward goes to you the original poster if the bot upvotes you in the first 30 mins. So I don't know that I would be getting too upset about it.