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

Vouch

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 507 posts

Re: Vouch

#351

Post by satvikpendem »

nl wrote: post #297
rifty wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like the problem here comes from the reluctance to utilize a negative sum outcome for rejection. Instead of introducing accidental perverse incentives, if rejected your stake shouldn't go to the repo, 50% could be returned, and 50% deleted. If it times out or gets approved you get 100% back. If a repo rejects too often or is seen doing so unfairly reputation would balance participation.

No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible.

But it could just be made a stablecoin.

Re: Vouch

#352

Post by freakynit »

kjs3 wrote: post #289
dom96 wrote: post #60

Initially I liked the idea, but the more I think about it the more this feels like it just boils down to: only allow contributions from a list of trusted people.

And...that's bad?

Not until you are wrongly considered "untrusted".

Re: Vouch

#353

Post by nl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #339
nl wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible.

> No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible. Isn't this problem unrelated to cryptocurrency? There will be the US dollar, and the people involved will be incentivized to keep its value high, e.g. by pressuring or invading other countries to prevent them from switching to other currencies. Or they'll be incentiv…

Sure, but your average developer doesn't have a lot of agency in if the US invades another country in order to increase the value of the coin they got for having a PR merged.

But with crypto they do. See for example all the BAGS coins that get created for random opensource projects and the behavior that occurs because of that.

Re: Vouch

#354

Post by throwaway2037 »

drewstiff wrote: post #35
ashton314 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway. Good reason to be careful. Maybe there's a bit of an upside to: if you vouch for someone who does good work, then you get a little boost too. It's how personal relationships work anyway. ---------- I'm pretty skeptical of all things cryptocurrency, but I've wondered if something like this would be an actually good us…

Ethos is already building something similar, but starting with a focus on reputation within the crypto ecosystem (which I think most can agree is an understandable place to begin) https://www.ethos.network/

I'm confused. Why do I need "reputation within the crypto ecosystem"? If I want to trade it, I use an exchange, like Binance.

Re: Vouch

#355

Post by SR2Z »

satvikpendem wrote: post #351
nl wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the perverse incentive is that there will be RepoCoin, and the people involved will be incentivized to make the price of that as high as possible.

But it could just be made a stablecoin.

It's a huge shame that crypto has been so poorly-behaved as an industry that almost nobody is willing to touch it except for speculation. It could be useful but it's scared away most of the honest people.

Re: Vouch

#356

Post by throwaway2037 »

moogly wrote: post #39

So you're screwed if you don't have any connections. In that way it's just like meat space.

This is untrue.

Look here: https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

It explains how to get vouched. You need to have a person vouch for you after you open an issue with your proposed change. After you are vouched, you may raise a PR.

Re: Vouch

#357

Post by throwaway2037 »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #347

This is a signal of failure of GH (Microsoft) to limit AI-based interactions, which is obviously not in their superficial strategic interests to do so. This project though tries to solve a platform policy problem by throwing unnecessary barriers in front of casual but potentially/actually useful contributors. Furthermore, it creates an "elite-takes-all", self-amplifying hierarchy of domination and rejection of new pa…

How can you "limit AI-based interactions"? Also, is there any "platform that penalizes AI properly at its source"?

Re: Vouch

#358

Post by anon291 »

Halan wrote: post #86

How does a potential positive contributor pierce through? If they are not contributing to something already and are not in the network with other contributors? They might be a SME on the subject and legit have something to bring to the table but only operated on private source. I get that AI is creating a ton of toil to maintainers but this is not the solution.

Honestly, the entire process of open-source contribution is broken. People should just fork and compete on the free 'market'. If you have a good idea / PR, just keep patchsets. People should mix and match the patch sets as they like. Maintainers who want to keep their version active will be forced to merge proper patch sets. The key argument against this is the difficulty integrating patch sets.

This should be easier with AI. Most LLMs are pretty good at integrating existing code.

Re: Vouch

#359

Post by Nevermark »

zx8080 wrote: post #247
Nevermark wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default could should be to refund. That would make not-refunding culturally crass unless it was warranted. With manual options for: 0. (Default, refund) 1. (Default refund) + Auto-send discouragement response. (But allow it.) 2. (Default refund) + Block. 3. Do not refund 4. Do not refund + Auto-send discouragement response. 5. Do not refund + Block. 6. Do not refund + Block + Report SPAM (Boom!) And typically use…

$10 will be a honeypot for scammers.

I don't think most people are going to pay $10 to get an email through without checking.

Might be worth strongly suggesting a check, at permission time.

But I am sure you are right.

Maybe receivers don't get the money. They just get to burn whoever is sending them email they don't want? A thought anyway.

Re: Vouch

#360

Post by 8organicbits »

hedora wrote: post #294

To play devil’s advocate: We’ve vendored a few open source projects by just asking an LLM to fix obvious bugs that have been open for 12+ months (some projects are abandoned, others active). If upstream can’t be bothered to fix such stuff (we’re talking major functionality gaps that a $10-100/month LLM can one-shot), isn’t my extremely well tested fix (typically a few dozen or maybe hundred lines) something they shou…

Open source projects are under no obligation to accept any patches, AI or human generated. Being the fastest evolving fork may not be their goal.

I'm pretty doubtful a handful of one-shot AI patches is a viable fork. Bug fixes are only one part of the workload.

Post reply on HN