You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A serious attempt at repairing the STEEM Economic Improvement Proposal (eip) for HF21

in #hf21 • 6 years ago

Suppose a selfvoter abusing plagiarism. He upvotes himself with 1000 rshares, and after that he receives 1000 rshares in downvotes. Let see what happens:

  • the author receives 666 - 333 = 333 rshares.
  • and curators receive 333 - 666 = -333 rshares... as this number is negative, it is changed to 0.

In conclusion, the plagiarism receives 333, and downvoters lose 333 for nothing (they put 1000 where only 666 where applied).
If downvoters want to give 0 to the author, they have to use 2000 rshares in downvotes (twice as much as in upvotes). So it will be more difficult to fight plagiarism, and bad content.

6 years ago in #hf21 by
$0.04
  • Past Payouts $0.04
  • - Author $0.03
  • - Curators $0.01
2 votes
Reply 4
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    You forget about the second proposed rule:

    • Only if by pay-out time the curator bucket holds a negative RSHARE count, this negative count is filled up to zero with positive RSHARES from the author bucket .

    The idea is that at pay out time a "negative" curator bucket is filled up to zero with what remains in the author bucket first. So at 1000 and -900

    • the author bucket receives 667 - 300 = 367 rshares.
    • the curators bucket receive 333 - 600 = -267 rshares. This is negative and needs to be filled up to zero if possible at pay out time.
    • After filling up the negative bucket to zero, there is 100 rshares left in the author bucket.