Well written. To add to your cynic side, Lab in Wuhan (China) was cooperating with the University of Karolina (USA) a few years ago... on coronavirus. Whether by chance it has moved from bats or slipped

Thanks for the comment. I'm aware there are a lot fewer 'real' players, but the latter number is unknown and not very relevant, as long as there are 'enough' of them. 6000 is an estimated number of accounts

With that being said, you might want to review your witness votes, unvote some of those who currently have no chance to make it to the top 20 and give those votes to the ones who are close to making it

I expect churches to be quiet empty this coming Sunday, despite my call to action.

Should they not do the opposite? Should they not show the power of prayer? Certainly, Pope and bishops distance themselves from people, so unlike Jesus did!

Thank you, very interesting. On Twitter, they are just opinions, Syed Jafri states: The biggest assumption there is that other voters do not have overlap in their voting. More casual users like me are

10 points minimum increase of rating still favors players playing large numbers of games (like lvl 1 bots do), as it breaks the symmetry of the equation, although it has a lower impact than win streak

What is the K value used? I assume below 20?

I will try to accommodate this feature into the simulation script later this week and compare it with plain ELO to see how different the impact is. Thanks.

Bots seem to be inevitable, but allowing operators of large swarms of level 1 bots to overtake genuine players due to bad game mechanics is very detrimental for the game. And they farm dozens or maybe

Win streak bonus is breaking the rating system. Players could still progress, and progression can be made even more entertaining with Multi League implementation, allowing also for better rewarding of

Sure. Bot vs bot and human vs human in the simulation are at 50% chance. Also, 'human' represents here better deck or skills rather than whether it's played by a person or software.

Plenty of data, great article! I have proposed to unify leagues, i.e. Champion 1,2 & 3 just into single Champion for the time being, due to a limited number of players with maxed cards and to reduce

I did! Thank you for the upvote. As long as it's noticed and helps to improve the game, even through the discussion, all is good :) And the other post I believe is worth an upvote anyway :D

Thanks!

You are the (almost) only one from the people somewhere on the witnesses list who addressed this issue at all. Thumbs up for this. Thanks. From my perspective of small fry, it's a delicate political issue

The workaround against both options is to simply split the stake to different accounts. No, it's not. See A splitting stake to A1 and A2 in my article. He can maximize usage of his stake, but still unable

That is very innacurate...1/3 +1 only gives the "attacker" ... Good thing we can agree on reducing the number of witness candidates a vote can be cast on. Most importantly, should be 1SP = 1

As shown in my article, current voting rules cause centralization and recently allowed exchanges to set up all 20 top witnesses. Interesting, that community witnesses talk a lot about decentralization

Steem is designed for an easy 1/3 + 1 attack. What is more, it's designed through the multivote rule to be 100% controlled by a very small number of top SP holders. I've asked in comments several witnesses