Decentralized Hacker News
Do we have a decentralized hacker news ?
Something like hacker news, where users can post only after they spend a hacker coin.
- For posting require a hacker coin.
- Challenge/wrestle the validity of post by staking some amount of token.
- Whoever wins the argument takes the opponents token.
- There can be a karma component as well, where in the bad actors need to pay 1.5x amount of token if they did a bad karma last time.
PS : Not a fan of everything decentralization. This post was just a thought and so decided to post here.
31 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 24.9 ms ] thread- For posting require a hacker coin. - Challenge/wrestle the validity of post by staking some amount of token. - Whoever wins the argument takes the opponents token. - There can be a karma component as well, where in the bad actors need to pay 1.5x amount of token if they did a bad karma last time.
PS : I am not of any extreme opinion that everything should be decentralized. This post was just a thought and so decided to post here.
You don't need the service to be decentralised to achieve this. (Or the later points) There are many hn clones - just add payment to one.
What's the actual motivation for the decentralised part?
There is no problem with HN - it's one of the best place on the net, but hey let's imagine a solution with crypto. A solution to what exactly ? There is no problem to begin with. Just like with 99.999% of stuff that crypto is supposed to solve.
I know it's just a thought exercise as you posted, so no offense, but it actually greatly illustrate the state of crypto applications (in my opinion)
It was heavily based on the principles developed for the old USENET news network and designed to work around the problems discovered by users of that system.
I found that cryptography was a necessary component of the distributed system - it's the only clean way to solve a host of problems associated with distributed discussion boards if you want to avoid things like censorship and special interests controlling discussion.
For example allowing the moderators of a group to moderate and remove spam posts and e.g. hate speech without making that mechanism vulnerable to spoofed article cancellations is tricky. The simplest way to handle the issue was to use a public key crypto system to package moderation commands. Moderation commands to edit/delete articles are sent alongside an encrypted hash for the command. The command is only valid if the public key for the moderator decrypts the auth packet and the hash matches the command text.
Crypto is also great for things like non-repudiation and reputation systems, both of which are important for a discussion system application.
By the way, there IS a problem with HN... several, actually, depending on your view of what's desirable in a site like this. It's not terribly scalable, it's rather biased toward a particular locality's view of the world, and like many such sites everyone is effectively anonymous.
The problem with HN that a distributed system is required to address is that HN belongs to a private company that has motivations based on its own interests instead of the good of the public or promotion of free speech.
HN can be controlled, edited, is in a legal jurisdiction that allows a corrupt government to obtain control of it or otherwise interfere with it, and in general suffers from all the problems of a centralized discussion board.
Uber for dog walkers. Slack for neighbourhoods. Etc.
However, crypto allows you bypass VCs entirely, allowing you to crowdfund. Naturally this results in a lot of exit scams, or stupid ideas with low probability getting funded where most experienced investors would have passed on.
Also, How do you determine who won the argument? How will the Jury decide the winner? this is all subjective
Winner for traditional debates between two individuals can be decided on quite simply. Whereas, for this scenario, the person staking the argument will have to defend against the whole population trying to bring it down. It won't be a "healthy" competition by any means.
I see no value in that.
> - Whoever wins the argument takes the opponents token.
Hacker News isn't fight club, not all posts and comments are arguments seeking refutation, and there isn't a single objective "winner" or "loser" in every discussion, nor a means to judge which is which. The people who tend to see every comment as an opportunity to "score points" tend to be the worst sort for a community... attaching an economy and gamifying that would only incentivize point scoring, gambling and rules lawyering over healthy or insightful dialogue.
> - There can be a karma component as well, where in the bad actors need to pay 1.5x amount of token if they did a bad karma last time.
So I can get some bot accounts and just mass downvote or flag anyone I disagree with to make it all but impossible for them to participate in the future? Good to know, I guess.
2. Karma component will only kick in, once the user has been identified as a bad actor by a jury. So you will never be able to bring bot accounts and just mass downvote. Good to know, I guess :)
A decentralized system that depends on a central source of authority? Who are the jury members? How are they selected, and by whom? How are they held accountable for their actions? How are their biases accounted for? How do we know they're not in collusion with the mods or other users?
>Karma component will only kick in, once the user has been identified as a bad actor by a jury. So you will never be able to bring bot accounts and just mass downvote.
So my downvotes don't count when the jury likes the person I'm voting against?
With the model you're describing, meanwhile, every downvote devalues your currency, and with it your ability to participate anywhere.
Additionally this can also favor certain thoughts/groups by the central authority. ( The jury itself will be selected/hired by the central authority. ). Large number of posts get removed from social networks, because they pertain to certain thought or are against some govt.
1. Consensus of what is valid doesn't require a tradable and fungible token so adding that game element is not required for decentralization (and I suspect would decrease the value of the service to increase the value of the game, something people are increasingly complaining about)
2. Most posts on Hacker News are regarding trading information, which is a not a zero sum game, unlike the game mechanics you are proposing. Both sides can be right.