4 ms·
For both of your questions, the answer is proof of work. For Sybils, that’s something I’ve considered. I’m thinking of making voting eligibility a trailing ind
by rolleiflex 8y ago
For both of your questions, the answer is proof of work.
For Sybils, that’s something I’ve considered. I’m thinking of making voting eligibility a trailing indicator where it tracks past activity to be considered a ‘citizen’ of that community, and allowing the mod team to temporaily lock down the community if they see such a thing happening.
- natch 8y agoWhat are your thoughts about the phenomenon called tyranny of the majority?
- hannasanarion 8y agoTyranny of the minority is worse
- natch 8y agoHah. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean we should accept either.
- blackbrokkoli 8y agoHow to prevent that tho? Everything seems to be at the risk of either the first or the second...
- natch 8y agoGood question. The framers of the US Constitution attempted to do it with a system of checks and balances... which works to a certain extent, but not perfectly. Point is just because it’s hard, that’s no reason to give up trying.
- hannasanarion 8y agoThe framers put in protections against tyranny of the minority, yes. But it's not the electoral college (which Madison and Hamilton tried to get rid of after they saw how it behaved) or fptp voting, or minority rule. You don't protect against tyranny of the majority by allowing minorities to dictate policy, that's just regular tyranny. You protect against majorities by requiring supermajorities for all the most important functions of government: constitutional change, impeachment, and censure.
- the_clarence 8y agoProof of work prevents small attackers to do that, but attacks with large computing power are not going to prevent this. Unless you made your proof of work really hard, but then not a lot of people can participate. What you need is a participation treshold to be hit before someone can vote. Kind of like HN limits your downvote until a certain karma threshold.