Let's simplify this the maximum: In the new system you have two parameters: a) You select the % VP you vote with. b) You select which value you envision the post to end up at. Your vote can then influence

First of all, I think you don't know the fine rules of discourse too well, because that's not how you discuss. Second, I am quite decent with math and code. If someone can with a specific quantity of VP

The user still applies a certain VP to the post. If less is used he gets it back after 7 days, end of complexity.

There are downvotes on reddit, but you can't see who upvoted or downvoted it.

But the same problem exists at the moment too.

No, you can vote 100% on 10$, and you will guarantee with 100% of your stake the 10$. That would be the idea of this proposal.

I'm btw also tired of you trying to impose yourself on me with your toxic conversation culture. Reread your text and think if you'd say this to a colleague of yours in the face. I bet you wouldn't because

Sorry, I worded the "One Person One Vote" thing wrong, general consensus relies on one process one vote, this doesn't work in a permissionelss setting, so the two options are one CPU one vote

Okay, I think one thing you are definitely and completely wrong about is that PoS is not to make it "One Person One Vote" but that is actually exactly what PoS or PoW is about. The reason for

I think we all agree that proof of stake is basically only a "solution" because we don't have any way to guarantee one person one vote reasonably. And even using KYC the way Voice does it will

Nono, the quantity of % of VP you add to it will stay the same always. The thing that changes is the actual value of the post itself.

I was simplifying it for the sake of simplification in the comment, I'm well aware that the value varies based on many things (VP, reward pool, curation, SP, etc). But, for sake of simplifying the

Yes, besides it removing one of the biggest incentives of holding Steem power right now, we would need a strong shift to a RC based system before doing so.

It is an echo chamber that's right, but it would definitely cause much more toxicity.

Actually, the system I am proposing would not be too different from what we have now, you got votes which are worth a certain quantity of vests depending on the vests and VP you got and the % you vote

Even if we go for an SMT based system, there will always be this fight about up and down-votes and how much SMT something is going to be worth. It is not going to solve this problem, but shift the problem

Thanks for the comment, Yeah, I don't care how you actually name it, but you got a grasp of my core idea. I agree partially with you. I think there is already a lot of complexity going on. Thus I also

basically the idea is that your vote is still worth a fixed amount, but it has a tendency into a certain direction. (Around the value you set for the post). To make sure its not over or under. Of course

Of course your vote can not move the value by more than your vote is worth in any direction. So if you vote 100$ with a 1$ vote it will go max to 1$, same in any direction

Are these communities on the main-net already, so, can community names be claimed already? And, what is the link for the beta again? =D