RE: The user @Acidyo is insistent on destroying our Community - Important Announcement for the FreeCompliments Community!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Good reasoning, but I'd counter it with this: if the community of delegators as a whole agrees with the content that is being voted upon, as well as the amount that is earned, then isn't that still consistent with proof of brain? A possible exception would be if the centralized system goes against the direct interest of its delegators (i.e. upvoting content that the delegators do not want upvoted) - to my understanding, that would be counter to proof of brain, but then can be solved by undelegating.
(If I'm wrong, please do correct!)
0
0
0.000
My understanding was that if one delegates to the @freecompliments account then they will, in turn, get their content upvoted. That does not factor in the consensus of other delegators by my understanding. Bot voting services of old, on STEEM, ran up against similar opposition in the past. They were run by such witnesses as @therealwolf if memory serves; so this disagreement exists at the highest level of the HIVE food chain.
My feeling is that the real solution would be to rework the downvoting system so that one voice cannot cripple an account or project but simply lend a strong voice for others to join so as to get more of a consensus on the matter.
This is not correct because I'm not a delegation project. I'm someone who uses the delegation projects, which is what the primary gripe was about. He chose to downvote me, and subsequently the community, because I delegate to these projects.
My misunderstanding on how your operation works exactly. Thanks for the clarification.