4 ms·
What makes your proposed system immune from abuse? "reviewers could receive currency directly for the information they provide, provided by the potential custo
by theoh 8y ago
What makes your proposed system immune from abuse?
"reviewers could receive currency directly for the information they provide, provided by the potential customers who benefit directly"
The greatest benefit goes to restaurants with positive reviews, which are thereby incentivized to game the system.
Blockchain might have solved the problem of trustless consensus with proof-of-work, but you are now introducing a new situation in which any number of fake, anonymous contributors can distort the review system. If the review reader pays the review writer directly, upvoting their own phony reviews doesn't cost the corrupt restaurant anything.
- nostrademons 8y agoIt's not immune from abuse. It's immune from abuse of the particular sort I describe. I'm not so naive as to think that all problems are magically fixed by blockchain, but given the number of posts on HN and elsewhere who complain about the power of big tech companies and assume they're tampering with or misrepresenting data for their own profit, it seems like people consider this problem to be important.
- theoh 8y agoBlockchain can't fix the problem of lack of trust, where it is trust that is desired. The trustless consensus idea is inherently abstract and paranoid, for better or worse. But life in human society requires constant acts of concrete trust and mutual consideration. The cypherpunks who invented the blockchain don't seem to have explored the idea taken to its "logical" conclusion of ripping out all trusted entities and (somehow) replacing them with exchange of anonymous cryptographic tokens. The blatant truth is that doing away with trust altogether would paralyse every aspect of civilization.