4 ms·
All those moderator actions you described would still be possible in web3. Moderators would still be able to up a topic, merge a topic, delete topics, ... But:
by Longwelwind 5y ago
All those moderator actions you described would still be possible in web3. Moderators would still be able to up a topic, merge a topic, delete topics, ...
But:
* The fact that the moderators have access to these mechanisms would be known by all users
* The use of these mechanisms by moderators would be public. If a topic is upped by a moderator, it would be logged in the blockchain. No moderator would be able to do it secretly.
Regarding the fee, it's true that it's a big downside. To get a feasible use case, the devs would need to find a blockchain that reduces them.
- meheleventyone 5y agoOr they could just publish a log of actions, this isn’t such priceless information that we couldn’t just rely on trust like we already do in the current situation that seems to work well.
- Longwelwind 5y agoI don't understand the point of your comment. You're providing a solution that doesn't fit the initial requirement of a system being trust-less. So, indeed, your solution works, but as you described, it requires trust in the administrators of the website. The idea of web3 is that you wouldn't. "Trust but verify", if you want. This could be used for Facebook or Reddit (given that they solve or attenuate the issue of fees), where people might have less trust in the administrators.
- meheleventyone 5y agoI'm just saying that HN has no need to be trustless. I don't see the value of that as a user. For stuff at the scale of Facebook and Reddit you'd also probably end up needing caching as the chains would be too slow so you end up needing a layer of trust anyway.