Listen, if you've created multiple attacks that all follow the same action of one, then that is the exact definition of a sybil attack. You are, in fact, manipulation the scoring algorithm for your own ends.
The whitepaper argues against this, yet they left the option to create automatic accounts open. It's one of the issues they address in the whitepaper and suggest their solution is staked voting, either way. Whether you're upvoting content with multiple bots, or downvoting them, you're engaging in sybil attack and manipulating metric data and rewards.
ive already explained to you twice why this is not a sibyl attack, and the white paper explained it again in the part youre talking about.
If you want to call it a sibyl attack, thats certainly your right. You can call A Pope Testosticlese the XXVII attack, that doesn't change that it isnt.
And no, that is not the exact definition of a sibyl attack. the defintion of A sibyl attack is where an attacker gains additional leverage on a reputation system by voting with multiple accounts beyond the leverage he would gain by voting with only one account....
thats why voting with multiple accounts is not a sibyl attack (on steem)-- because the "attacker" gains no additional leverage. Voting with 1 1000SP account is exactly the same as voting with 2 500SP accounts.
Once again, the definition of a sibyl attack is where you gain additional leverage by using more than one account than you would have had if you just used one account.
Curation rewards are exactly the same when voting with multiple accounts, and so is the amount you reward you give or take away.
Also, a sibyl attack is something thats made against the platform, not an individual user.
You really really don't understand the concepts youre trying to address.
You should ask dan what he thinks. Oh wait you already did... he told you that you were wrong.
Through curation rewards, you gain additional leverage, and also give or take away, additional leverage to those you issue said sybil attack on. You've proved my point. Thanks.
I meant that in relation to sybil attacks. You keep taking my words out of context in order to prove your point, which is counterproductive.
You've proved my point again, by the way:
Curation rewards differ depending on the amount of vote weight you have, we all know this. So, if someone who has different vote weights, across multiple accounts, and who is engaged in collective voting with those accounts, they are essentially manipulating the reward pool for their own benefit, and that, by definition, is a sybil attack against the platform.
You need to think before responding again, or at least consider the entire sentence as it is, because your complete lack of reasoning has us repeating ourselves.