2 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 20 Dec 2021 \ on: What prevents self-upvoting to game the ranking system? bitcoin
The top proposals I've heard or thought of so far to combat this:
- do it the old fashioned way: use various measures of seniority to weight upvotes, provide downvotes, and moderate
- pros: been done before and works for reddit, hn, etc. It's sort of proof of community work, which seems fair enough.
- cons: creates a system of rulers, rent seekers, and mob rule which gets us to wanting alternatives in the first place
- one node = one vote: upvotes only really count if a user provides some proof that they are running a lightning node
- pros: running a lightning node is work, especially if proof requires some measure of uptime and channel number (utxos)
- cons: UX, I would guess half of our users don't run nodes, and on long time scales most users won't be node runners
- post prediction markets: sats toward a post are effectively a bet that other users will also bet on a post. Users make their sats back and more if the post does well and loses the sats if it doesn't.
- pros: uses real proof of work ie sats to effect ranking, significantly differentiates SN from existing players, and could scale better
- cons: hard to communicate, tricky to design and implement, regulatory risk, not democratic
I think you got a good summary there. I'll add another, using your format.
- composable (vote power & payout) contracts: OP chooses the algorithm (maybe a default in their user settings w/ option to overide on posting); a sha or algo-label w/version info. It gets subtly displayed with each post. Optionally, contracts could be as simple as a link to a github gist with a dozen lines of python using standardized variables or could get a bit more complex if they were extensions sent as a PR.
- pros: allows for maximum experimentation, Eg. a post's votes could go to charity and emit decaying vote power. Or fun stuff, like, cake-day vote power or local weather based vote power.
- cons: a bit of a UI drag, but I think a few popular defaults would emerge.
reply
the above feels the most plebian if that's a word. Power to the pleb, because they get choice, kind of thing.
Might need a few guard rails.
You could also create moderation hooks with such a convention too. Users could maintain the moderator list and logic in the gist. You could even do, N of M logic with a set of mods, or mods could take shifts, or whatever...very very transparently.
reply
An extension of this idea (with a bit more work), would make it possible for the OP to for instance commit in advance to paying the top 1, or top 3, upvoted replies some fraction of the tipped sats.
reply
This would be cool. My main concern would be UX but I love the idea of giving users more choices.
reply