What if you had to stake to post? What if community members could add to the stake? What if some kind of vote+comment signature had to materialize, else you and others lost the stake? So, if you staked 1000 sats, you would effectively be saying "I think this post is worthy AND if it turns out that SN thinks i'm trying to game the system, I lose my stake". If you posted, and then gamed it, upvoting your own post from say 3 other accounts with large amounts, then nobody else upvoted it with even small amounts, then stacker.news would detect the voting distribution as compromised and distribute to stakers on other posts who did prove to have organic voting signatures. This only works if there are common voting distributions (amount, count, users, and time) for organic upvoted content while compromised content would have flawed distributions.
Stakers could get their own sats back and either a portion of the upvotes or the sats from posts that were deemed compromised after say, one week.
A mechanism like that could turn curation into a profession.
Another idea is just do smarter math, that is harder to game.
Boost the weight of regular voters and posters with regular voting patterns.
Dampen the weight of one-off-votes or new accounts
Stacker.news keeps/ignores the sats from largest vote(s)
Stacker.news keeps/ignores the sats if you spend say, more than 50% of your balance on one upvote if it's spent inside of a month. ie, new user + yolo-ing-voting =
Figure out a penalty mechanism for votes from new users. Eg. vote_power = votes_from_seasoned_members / votes_from_new_users
basically...get creative with variables like these...
The biggest threat to Bitcoin is capture dev capture. Done right you won't make changes to the code that people disagree with immediately. You will make small, incremental changes that seem insignificant in the grand scheme. Shift the overton window, boil the frogs.
Ultimately the rules of the network are underpinned by social consensus, and there has been no point in history where mass social consent is invulnerable to manipulation. Being aware of this is critical to defending Bitcoin over the span of decades to hundreds of years.
As a fellow writer, I'd never thought of solipsism, but I heavily relate after researching. Appreciate you bringing a bit more self awareness to my life!
It discusses advanced alien civilizations that use a bitcoin like network with blocktimes of the order of centuries so that it's feasible to broadcast the blocks across the galaxy.
Those civilizations have extreme low time preference, always planning transactions for millennia, across generations.
I think we are still far from that need and 10 minutes is good for now.
I remember when I started to write, I only wanted to have 1k readers; when it reached 1k, then you wanted to have 2k, 5k, 10k... feels the same with Bitcoin, it's strange.
Later this month I am hosting a Bitcoin workshop in Tokyo for beginners (In Japanese! ๐ฑ) on Bitcoin basics, including why Bitcoin is important, wallet and self-custody fundamentals, and an overall general intro.
With the failure of the Yen here I am really hoping to spread the word about Bitcoin and how people can custody it themselves.
Generally, most books suck, particularly Bitcoin and tech industry ones. There is only one good Bitcoin book, Cryptoeconomics, and even that one I would debate some aspects of, but at least it is intelligent, rational, and can be applied. Otherwise, books that have influenced me are The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, and metaphysical speeches by people like Alan Watts, Jordan Peterson, etc. The way I tackle a topic is to obsess about it and discard bullshit with extreme prejudice. I went into a very deep rabbit hole for a long time to design Synonym's vision and choices. What's important is to make new mistakes, so you have to make sure to shed old ones and focus on what is left and the dynamics involved. Primitives are all that matter, you can't design without identifying them and knowing where the edges of a system really are.
As I modeled a hyperbitcoinized world I came to the conclusion that there will always be multiple forms of money and the need for finance (using other peoples money to accelerate growth and cooperate on larger goals) and thus you need at least Bitcoin as decentralized abstracted value and "credit" as trusted issuer-defined value. We need tokens as credit and we need them to be as programmable as Bitcoin so we can leverage trust and abstract away the need for government fiat entirely.
I guess it isn't up to me to decide what is the most controversial take, but you could go through my Good Morning tweets and look at the ones with the most replies I guess :) https://twitter.com/i/events/1442133822724841472
Otherwise, I think maybe the most underappreciated take is that Bitcoin is not divisible. I am worried that Bitcoiners both misunderstand that Bitcoin is an enforced integer total, having no decimals, but also misunderstand that dividing and multiplying Bitcoin are the same thing, and that one day we may have to make a hard decision to add more Bitcoins, and it might even be a majority of people that want it and for rational reasons. I am just relieved that I will probably be dead before that debate arises :)
I wish we never had the "Bitcoin" denomination and always used sats only. (and also that we had named them bits or bitcoins instead!)
Most bitcoiners I've met in person are incredibly optimistic about listening to the thoughts of fellow plebs. Some are unfortunately cynical. I was merely marveling at the luck that I've run into - being able to make units of magical internet money by opining online. I'm an optimistic pleb. And grateful to SN & Bitcoin :)
https://m.stacker.news/5068
https://radio.noderunners.org/ ๐
I think something creative that aligns incentives could be possible, and more interesting than simply "OP doesn't get paid".
Couple ideas...
Staking
What if you had to stake to post? What if community members could add to the stake? What if some kind of vote+comment signature had to materialize, else you and others lost the stake? So, if you staked 1000 sats, you would effectively be saying "I think this post is worthy AND if it turns out that SN thinks i'm trying to game the system, I lose my stake". If you posted, and then gamed it, upvoting your own post from say 3 other accounts with large amounts, then nobody else upvoted it with even small amounts, then stacker.news would detect the voting distribution as compromised and distribute to stakers on other posts who did prove to have organic voting signatures. This only works if there are common voting distributions (amount, count, users, and time) for organic upvoted content while compromised content would have flawed distributions.
Stakers could get their own sats back and either a portion of the upvotes or the sats from posts that were deemed compromised after say, one week.
A mechanism like that could turn curation into a profession.
Algorithm
Another idea is just do smarter math, that is harder to game.
basically...get creative with variables like these...
age_of_post age_of_op age_of_voter age_of_average_voter age_of_average_commenter voter_balance voter_average_vote_amount voter_total_vote_count voter_std_deviation_vote_ammount posts_comment_count posts_vote_count clicks_vs_vote_count clicks_vs_vote_amountI could go on...
The biggest threat to Bitcoin is capture dev capture. Done right you won't make changes to the code that people disagree with immediately. You will make small, incremental changes that seem insignificant in the grand scheme. Shift the overton window, boil the frogs.
Ultimately the rules of the network are underpinned by social consensus, and there has been no point in history where mass social consent is invulnerable to manipulation. Being aware of this is critical to defending Bitcoin over the span of decades to hundreds of years.
As a fellow writer, I'd never thought of solipsism, but I heavily relate after researching. Appreciate you bringing a bit more self awareness to my life!
it's good you picked Nov 5, a dull ordinary mundane day
We need a bot to watch phrases.
@notifyme when darthcoin says "you will come back to my words"
Read Bitcoin Astronomy.
It discusses advanced alien civilizations that use a bitcoin like network with blocktimes of the order of centuries so that it's feasible to broadcast the blocks across the galaxy.
Those civilizations have extreme low time preference, always planning transactions for millennia, across generations.
I think we are still far from that need and 10 minutes is good for now.
I remember when I started to write, I only wanted to have 1k readers; when it reached 1k, then you wanted to have 2k, 5k, 10k... feels the same with Bitcoin, it's strange.
Hello cowboys
First time visiting Nashville, I like the Honky Tonk vibe ๐ค ๐ต๐ถ
Finishing up the Saylor.org free courses Bitcoin for Developers and Bitcoin for Everyone, learned a lot about the beautiful math behind Bitcoin
Later this month I am hosting a Bitcoin workshop in Tokyo for beginners (In Japanese! ๐ฑ) on Bitcoin basics, including why Bitcoin is important, wallet and self-custody fundamentals, and an overall general intro.
With the failure of the Yen here I am really hoping to spread the word about Bitcoin and how people can custody it themselves.
Here is the link to the event! ใใใใณใคใณใใใใใไพกๅคใฎๅคๆ ใฏใผใฏใทใงใใ #1
My best is 3 lol
https://twitter.com/i/events/1442133822724841472
Otherwise, I think maybe the most underappreciated take is that Bitcoin is not divisible. I am worried that Bitcoiners both misunderstand that Bitcoin is an enforced integer total, having no decimals, but also misunderstand that dividing and multiplying Bitcoin are the same thing, and that one day we may have to make a hard decision to add more Bitcoins, and it might even be a majority of people that want it and for rational reasons. I am just relieved that I will probably be dead before that debate arises :)
I wish we never had the "Bitcoin" denomination and always used sats only. (and also that we had named them bits or bitcoins instead!)
Day 264 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k.
...and 64 push-ups. (40 - 24)
__@_'-'
Most bitcoiners I've met in person are incredibly optimistic about listening to the thoughts of fellow plebs. Some are unfortunately cynical. I was merely marveling at the luck that I've run into - being able to make units of magical internet money by opining online. I'm an optimistic pleb. And grateful to SN & Bitcoin :)