1 sat \ 3 replies \ @jeff 21 Dec 2021 \ parent \ on: What prevents self-upvoting to game the ranking system? bitcoin
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.
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