RE: Decentralized doesn't have to mean chaotic. A case for Hive communication.

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

This is the first part of the system, the second one would be a system for expressing opinions in organize manners. Anybody could add a relevant topic or issue that would be voted later by all interested users, the outcome could be viewed in the two-way
-HP wise
-user count wise

I was thinking this exact thing earlier today. I understand the need for 'skin in the game' when it comes to reward distribution, but there needs to be some ability for a huge number of minnows to make a big impact. The challenge I guess deals with how to disincentivize the use of bots that could manipulate that process. I will defer to someone more technically savvy about how best to do that.

In the meantime, let's keep this dialogue moving forward!



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

Combating bots activity seems fairly easy using some sort of consensus model taking into consideration the reputation factor. Either minimal reputation required or model in which reputable users confirm no-bots activity. With the second option, trust is needed but since it's not decisive it would be clear if somebody stated the truth or just realized their own agenda.

0
0
0.000