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

21–30 of 95 posts

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

#21

Post by mcny »

yinyinwu wrote: post #15
fake-name wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't answer the more important question. The issue isn't how do you handle "incorrect" information, it's how do you REMOVE information. Basically, when someone doxxes someone, and dumps the result onto your system, how to you remove it? If you don't have a facility for rendering intentionally malicious information impossible to access , your system is fundamentally broken.

I think the tough part is deciding who should be the arbiter or whether information is intentionally malicious. Censorship can be a real issue. For the DIRT protocol, if want to remove information, you also need to deposit tokens and put forth evidence to convince voters in the network to side with you. If you lose the vote, then you would also lose tokens. We put forth an economic penalty for being inaccurate.

Firstly, congratulations on launching!

> For the DIRT protocol, if want to remove information, you also need to deposit tokens and put forth evidence to convince voters in the network to side with you. If you lose the vote, then you would also tokens. We put forth an economic for being malicious.

Sorry if this is a stupid question but if I lose a vote, can I bring it up for a vote again? I think that should be ok, right? Even if I get some fact removed by some kind of trickery where I sneak in a vote it should be OK because if the fact belongs there, maybe someone else can add it again?

I think this works well for facts like Robert Kennedy as a matter of fact did NOT kill John F Kennedy. However, some things are not objectively clear. What happens when people keep adding "fake news" that is not obviously/patently false? Does someone need to pay to have it removed? How often do I do that? Every time someone adds it?

Now again the flip side is troublesome. We can't require identification for anyone to post facts, right? I mean I think that would be unthinkable, right? As such, how do we "rate limit" "fake news"?

Sorry if all of these have obvious answers. I just couldn't think of it...

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

#22

Post by yinyinwu »

progval wrote: post #18

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

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 because it reduces the noise in each submission. 2) Commercial data - For markets where people can profit for spreading misinformation, open editing is not the best approach. You could create a wikipedia list of stores that sell hand made jewelry. Sellers can benefit from inclusion on the list, and would want to join the list regardless of whether they meet the criteria. The likely outcome is that the list would not be useful.

We’re believers in the blockchain and decentralization, but decentralized information curation is not needed everywhere. However, in markets where there is a critical, single point of failure, where you need transparency because you cannot trust any single actor, and where you have a high demand for data accuracy, DIRT can be very useful.

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

#23

Post by tribler »

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?

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

#24

Post by fleitz »

jesseb wrote: post #13
yinyinwu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What systems are in place to prevent a malicious actor who is well funded from spreading disinformation and/or discrediting factual data?

The fact that there is currency involved means that those without money are the malicious actors spreading false data, after all the blockchain said it was true.

There is no such thing as a well funded malicious actor in this protocol, only unfunded malicious actors.

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

#26

Post by sometimesijust »

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.

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

#27

Post by progval »

yinyinwu wrote: post #22
progval wrote: post #18

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

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, because voting only gives a majority opinion (weighted by how much money one wants to spend on that issue), not the truth.

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

#28

Post by yinyinwu »

mcny wrote: post #21
yinyinwu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the tough part is deciding who should be the arbiter or whether information is intentionally malicious. Censorship can be a real issue. For the DIRT protocol, if want to remove information, you also need to deposit tokens and put forth evidence to convince voters in the network to side with you. If you lose the vote, then you would also lose tokens. We put forth an economic penalty for being inaccurate.

Firstly, congratulations on launching! > For the DIRT protocol, if want to remove information, you also need to deposit tokens and put forth evidence to convince voters in the network to side with you. If you lose the vote, then you would also tokens. We put forth an economic for being malicious. Sorry if this is a stupid question but if I lose a vote, can I bring it up for a vote again? I think that should be ok, ri…

Thanks! Great question.

1. Repeat votes - If you lose the vote, you can vote again. DIRT works not only for correcting intentionally misleading data, but also for fixing out of data information. It's similar to a bug bounty for data.

2. Cycle of challenges - Each time misinformation re-surfaces, you would have to challenge and vote down the data. However, every time you are successful in your challenge, you earn tokens for your efforts.

3. Fake news - Subjective information can be harder to adjudicate with DIRT and that will not be our initial market. As an engineer, I would love to believe that the blockchain can solve fake news. However, a lot of research shows it is not the lack of data that the issue, but rather perspective. People believe what they want to believe.

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

#29

Post by darawk »

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…

> 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 onto the list of that token. The value of being on that list comes from the prestige of the list (i.e. its track record of honesty/quality).

> And what would prevent hand-made jewelry sellers from uniting against a single legitimate seller?

They could do this, but again, they'd be doing it at some cost to the prestige of their list.

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

#30

Post by darawk »

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?

It's really not that simple. The 'rich' in this case are the owners of the most tokens on a given list. Those 'rich' are only rich insofar as those tokens have value. Those tokens have value only insofar as people want to be on that list. Which means, that the people with lots of tokens are incentivized to maintain a good quality list.
Post reply on HN