RE: Self upvoting for witnesses ONLY - A proposal....For the future growth of Blurt.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Self upvoting for witnesses ONLY - A proposal....For the future growth of Blurt.
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
I watched it but cannot make any sense of it. Also due to understand his colored english accent which I have a hard time to follow.
Can you give me some short summary and the essence of what is being said?
they created a blockchain based system where participants are randomly selected to participate in a jury system
in order to test the system, they created a contest with a huge prize pool (something like 20 ethereum or something)
the challenge was to submit a picture of a cat and get a jury to answer "YES" to the question "is this a doge ?"
the test of the decentralized - - randomized jury system - - and appeal system - - was extremely successful
i believe this is the best possible jury system for moderation
I still don't get it.
Sorry.
steemcleaners / hivewatchers / blurtwardens all CLAIM to represent "the will of the community"
but have a decidedly "guilty until proven innocent" policy with no truly neutral appeals process
a DECENTRALIZED JURY (and transparent appeals system) system solves this problem
if someone thinks content should be removed or an account should be sanctioned in some way
then a panel of jurors would be (randomly) selected who would either vote "YES" or "NO"
this would represent "the will of the community" better than any "self-appointed" vigilantes
Would you say that they also could opt for "dismissing" a case out of perceived irrelevance? Would you elaborate on that idea and propose it?
i am unfamiliar with the proposal procedure
the idea of a decentralized jury seems so obviously "good" that it is difficult for me to imagine anyone not recognizing it (once they hear of it)
I would need seeing it playing out to really grasp it. What's obvious to you is not obvious for me. HaHa!
But then, a jury would not do it in the open?
the final result would be public of course
but the individual jurors would not be identifiable
the following is just an example
a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user.
A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury.
If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected.
There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status.
There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is a small added bonus for voting with the majority iff there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
Ahhh... Thank you very much, now I have a much clearer picture about your jury idea.
There are some things in the very background of my mind though who give an "alarm" about it but I am not quite sure what those thoughts are trying me to tell.
I might come back to it.
here's another project with similar goals,
https://peakd.com/fractally/@mattlangston/first-results-from-the-fractal-governance-experiments
also, the person "flagging" or "reporting" would pay the bounty for the juror's participation
if the jury votes to remove the content (the agree the flag is valid), half the bounty would go to the jurors and half would be returned to the reporter
if the jury votes to NOT remove the content (false flag), half the bounty would go to the jurors and half would be "burned" (to disincentivize false reporting)