You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Ideas for Future Rule Changes - Voting, Earnings, Maximum Social Benefits - a Discussion Document

in #steemit • 8 years ago (edited)

Walking the voting graph every time a post pays out seems like a lot of computation. My gut feeling is that it might not scale to the sizes and speeds that they want to reach with steem. I could definitely be wrong though. I haven't thought it through carefully or read the code. It's just a guess.

Update: I guess you'd do this at voting time, not payout time, but the concern is the same. My gut feeling is that it would turn an O(1) operation into an O(n) operation. With the number of votes that are placed, that might slow things down too much.

8 years ago in #steemit by
100%
    -100%

      Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

      • Disagreement on rewards
      • Fraud or plagiarism
      • Hate speech or trolling
      • Miscategorized content or spam

      Submit
      0.00 BPC
        1 vote
        Reply Tribe-Mute3
        Sort:  
      • Trending
        • [-]
         8 years ago 

        No it would remain roughly O(1), the look up does not grow with the number of votes to place, it's constant size per user. The implementation would be like a FIFO queue of size N, @rycharde suggests N = 10.

        steemd uses a local DB to cache information, as far as I have seen from very cursory glances. The real cost would be a fixed size increase to the cache per user. As we scale this could have a big impact of witness server resources and might be an argument against it. But then again this is the job of a witness and if it's a needed feature they (we I guess!) will have to step up.

        100%
          -100%

            Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

            • Disagreement on rewards
            • Fraud or plagiarism
            • Hate speech or trolling
            • Miscategorized content or spam

            Submit
            0.00 BPC
              1 vote
              Reply
              [-]
               8 years ago (edited)

              Ah right, I forgot the post suggested tracking the last 10 votes. I was thinking of all votes within a time period. The problem then becomes - what if the person self-votes 100%, then places -9- 10 other votes at 1%? Maybe you only add the vote to the queue if the vote percentage is above a certain threshold?

              100%
                -100%

                  Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

                  • Disagreement on rewards
                  • Fraud or plagiarism
                  • Hate speech or trolling
                  • Miscategorized content or spam

                  Submit
                  0.00 BPC
                    1 vote
                    Reply
                    [-]
                     8 years ago 

                    I think simply multiplying by the weight would be the most effective instead of using a threshold.

                    Perhaps you have an opinion @rycharde?

                    100%
                      -100%

                        Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:

                        • Disagreement on rewards
                        • Fraud or plagiarism
                        • Hate speech or trolling
                        • Miscategorized content or spam

                        Submit
                        0.00 BPC
                          2 votes
                          Reply