Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#31

Post by progval »

darawk wrote: post #29
progval wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A jewel seller would have an incentive to stake a lot of tokens on inclusion in the list; but who would have an incentive to stake as many tokens against the inclusion? Hand-made jewelry sellers, but bystander effect may apply. And what would prevent hand-made jewelry sellers from uniting against a single legitimate seller? The only solution is to provide sources and have them manually reviewed by a trusted party, be…

> A jewel seller would have an incentive to stake a lot of tokens on inclusion in the list; but who would have an incentive to stake as many tokens against the inclusion? Hand-made jewelry sellers, but bystander effect may apply. The other owners of the tokens! That's the conceit of a TCR. The owners of the tokens have an incentive to maintain their value. The value of their tokens comes from their ability to get you…

And how would someone check for the prestige/track record of such a list?

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#34

Post by yinyinwu »

tribler wrote: post #23
progval wrote: post #18

So it's Wikidata but with "blockchain" stamped on it to raise more money?

The Truth is determined by the rich! Majority voting by token owners determines the facts. You just can't make up stuff like this. Curious how this will play out. Threshold for contributing is non-trivial, so the wasteland scenario is my academic guess. The contribution scoring and ranking will help, but can you be anonymous?

In many ways, a system where the wealthy control information is what we have today. You can influence elections with donations.

Today, if a publication or data source posts information about you or your business, there is no means to correct this data. You can post about it on Twitter or email the service, and wait for a response. You can't just fix this information. With DIRT, we create a way for people to at least be part of the curation process.

Different types of data require different governance models. Some datasets are not as critical to protect and could have a low token stake. For other pieces of information, you want every writer to have more skin in the game and thus have a high stake for writing. Our bet with building a protocol is to test what incentives will curate the best data.

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#35

Post by ram_rar »

Firstly, Congratulations for launching DIRT.

>If the data is incorrect, anyone can challenge the data and earn tokens for identifying these inaccurate facts.

How do you moderate censorship or conflicting information ? if someone uploads my personal info, without my consent. How do I get to purge it ? From the current model, it seems like I ll have to pay money to "request" purging my own data.

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#36

Post by darawk »

progval wrote: post #31
darawk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A jewel seller would have an incentive to stake a lot of tokens on inclusion in the list; but who would have an incentive to stake as many tokens against the inclusion? Hand-made jewelry sellers, but bystander effect may apply. The other owners of the tokens! That's the conceit of a TCR. The owners of the tokens have an incentive to maintain their value. The value of their tokens comes from their ability to get you…

And how would someone check for the prestige/track record of such a list?

The same way you know the prestige of say, the NY times. Just reputation, developed by consistently meeting certain standards.

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#37

Post by yinyinwu »

progval wrote: post #27
yinyinwu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia works great in most use cases. There are also situations where DIRT is a better approach: 1) More efficient than centralized curation - Social media companies receive millions of requests to take down copyright information or spam sites. Today, you have centralized teams vetting each request individually and can take months to review. For this use case, DIRT is a valuable alternative to vetting information…

A jewel seller would have an incentive to stake a lot of tokens on inclusion in the list; but who would have an incentive to stake as many tokens against the inclusion? Hand-made jewelry sellers, but bystander effect may apply. And what would prevent hand-made jewelry sellers from uniting against a single legitimate seller? The only solution is to provide sources and have them manually reviewed by a trusted party, be…

TCRs work well when the information is both objective and verifiable. Using Etsy as an example, you can usually tell if a piece of jewelry is hand vs machine made. However, in the listing tags of Etsy sellers, there are sellers who misadvertise machine made goods as handmade. Etsy sellers have internal chat boards where they call out repeat offenders for misleading advertising. Honest sellers who are making the effort to make their jewelry by hand are the ones hurt by the misleading behavior of others.

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#38

Post by dang »

progval wrote: post #18

So it's Wikidata but with "blockchain" stamped on it to raise more money?

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: DIRT Protocol raises $3M to build a Wikipedia for structured data

#39

Post by TekMol »

My feeling is that this is either an illusion ("it will work out somehow") or a sham ("let's milk the crypto craze").

No answer to the question why selling votes should result in more accuracy. Buzzword Bingo. An overly broad approach. Lot's of social proof but thin on content. This reminds me of all those ICOs we see these days.

Looking forward to read the whitepaper. But somehow I have the feeling it will either never come or it will be just another marketing brochure without technical details.

Post reply on HN