51–60 of 95 posts
Seems like a pretty great way to remove the middleman from populist infotainment consumption. Can't be worse than what we already have and by making it explicitly richest party wins it makes the process more transparent. It might not be the Truth but at least it is Honest.
Please proof. Otherwise good irony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way you know the prestige of say, the NY times. Just reputation, developed by consistently meeting certain standards.
The NYT works as a trusted third-party, because it curates a lot of information. That does not work for a narrow-focused piece of information like a jewelry list
If you need to find trusted data, a curator exists only if the market for that information is large enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way you know the prestige of say, the NY times. Just reputation, developed by consistently meeting certain standards.
The NYT works as a trusted third-party, because it curates a lot of information. That does not work for a narrow-focused piece of information like a jewelry list
If there were an economic incentive to challenge facts published by the NYT, would Blair's deception have persisted for several years? It's even possible that a subject in one of his stories would stake tokens to challenge the accuracy of the story. Blair could then respond by voting against the challenge with a large number of tokens, but would other parties join Blair or the challenger? They would probably investigate further and effectively join the challenge as neutral arbiters. The incentive on both sides is to provide persuasive information to win votes. The direct token incentive for the neutral parties is two-fold: vote with the winning side to gain tokens, and increase the value of the tokens they hold by helping the registry to become more popular so that demand for the tokens increases. If consumers of the registry value accuracy, that incentivizes the entire network to fiercely defend the accuracy of the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! DIRT is a fundamentally different approach because it removes the middleman and there is no central moderator. Our goal is to move the trust from a central party to a system of rules that anyone can participate in. I think verified identity could be a registry on DIRT. Adding reputation on top of voting is something we're exploring.
I don't understand your answer. Can you explain more clearly what the process would be for removing personal info?
Can someone explain how exactly DIRT protocol will do moderation? From their site [1] it seems like they do some sort of moderating of crowd-sourced structured data. But this is where I am a bit confused: "DIRT maintains accuracy because every contributor needs to deposit tokens to write data. If the data is correct, it is freely shared. If the data is incorrect, anyone can challenge the data and earn tokens for iden…
Hi! Thanks for the question. DIRT works well for objective information. In the cryptocurrency use case, this could be the ERC-20 smart contract address for a token or a list of investors for a project. To flag information as incorrect, you need to take tokens and challenge the data. A challenge starts a vote and anyone in the DIRT network can vote with their tokens on what information is correct. The vote winner and…
This seems like a hilariously bad idea. You're basically building a system where whichever group has the most money to burn gets to decide the "truth". I would love you to change my mind though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your answer. Can you explain more clearly what the process would be for removing personal info?
I can't see any obvious place to download this dirt protocol so I can check (the website seems to be 100% marketing, 0% documentation), but based on a combination of pattern recognition and the evasiveness of the above answer, I would wager the answer is "there is no process, we didn't think about data deletion".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand your answer. Can you explain more clearly what the process would be for removing personal info?
I can't see any obvious place to download this dirt protocol so I can check (the website seems to be 100% marketing, 0% documentation), but based on a combination of pattern recognition and the evasiveness of the above answer, I would wager the answer is "there is no process, we didn't think about data deletion".
No resistance to censorship.
No resistance to conflicting information.
More money = more “truth” with no recourse, because removing info costs.
Incorrect info loses you money, but there is no functional systemic way to determine correct/incorrect.
Waaaaay too much marketing and nothing else extant.
This seems like a hilariously bad idea. You're basically building a system where whichever group has the most money to burn gets to decide the "truth". I would love you to change my mind though.
…by big oil's dollars.