4 ms·

Considering Dorsey's active participation and evangelising on Bitcoin and the Lightning Network, I expect that he will be working in that direction; building a

Considering Dorsey's active participation and evangelising on Bitcoin and the Lightning Network, I expect that he will be working in that direction; building a messaging protocol based on the Lighting Network that allows users to upvote with satoshis. This monetises the user engagement and makes bots less feasible, aligning user incentives.

bamboozled 4y ago
- mw888 4y ago
  Your comment serves no purpose, offers no feedback, and is rude.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    It's a genuine question? It sounds so outrageous I couldn't tell if it was satire or not? We've all become a little sensitive?
- irusensei 4y ago
  Please refrain from low quality snarky comments. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.[0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
willis936 4y ago
Yes, no person or organization uses money to influence social discourse.
irusensei 4y ago
Dorsey has been hitting at that for a while but AFAIK never delivered. Meanwhile some guys created Nostr[0] that is so simple and functional its comical. Basically you sign a message and broadcast to one or more relays. Its not even p2p. Keet/Holepunch[1] are based on DHT and some bittorrenty things. Basically serverless and p2p as far as I can understand. There is some scrutiny about the source code not being available but they said the project is really nascent and as soon as they clean the code they'll release it. I'd like to see that. [0] - https://nostr.com https://nostr.com [1] - https://keet.io https://keet.io None of the above projects are blockchain based and require tokens to transact although they might have some LN integration in the future.
drc500free 4y ago
"Upvoting messages with currency" is literally describing what advertising is.
- rocqua 4y ago
  Except that you can limit to 1 upvote per account, and use (centralized) moderation to handle sybil attacks by removing upvotes with discretion.
  - wanderingbort 4y ago
    If you could do that effectively then what is the point of spending money to upvote? Also look into the current state of play to earn games [1] and some NFT auction methods where people are selling their participation quite openly [2] It’s no longer a Sybil attack if it is real people who value their moral “vote” less than the market rate of that vote. It’s just an open market encouraging wealthy participants to on-board buyable users. [1] https://restofworld.org/2021/axie-infinity/ https://restofworld.org/2021/axie-infinity/ [2] https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/04/29/please-dont-buy-a-kycd-wallet-for-the-bored-apes-teams-otherside-mint/ https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/04/29/please-dont-buy-a...
    - rocqua 4y ago
      The idea would be a fixed price for an upvote. Not to create a market, but for two other advantages. It creates a cost for bots and hence a cost for massive spam campaigns. And it creates compensation to the system for processing and displaying the content. As for people selling their vote, this occurs even without costs in the form of vote brigading, and seems pretty controllable on e.g. reddit.
      - wanderingbort 4y ago
        The market isn’t the price of the vote, it’s the price to buy someone’s vote. That’s a race to the bottom. Right now the cheapest option is a bot. A perfect anti-bot solution shifts this so that the cheapest option is the global poor. Zoom out, is the problem is manipulation not bots. Bots are just the best weapon today. Does this new scheme present a sustainable solution to manipulation? I don’t believe it does. over time, power and wealth will be more able to pay the per vote cost and raising it will disproportionately deny real peoples voice. Looping back, this is why I asked if any of it was needed once we assume the presence of a working moderation scheme (which you credit as the protection today from vote buying).
ricardobayes 4y ago
It sounds good at first, but then the biggest issue is that a platform like this becomes really susceptible to manipulation/pushing an agenda etc. Anonymous 'vote buying' is even worse than working with ads.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  Twitter likes / retweets are already regularly paid for. There are paid networks of accounts that will upvote and follow for money.
swamp40 4y ago
It's funny how you can take a multi-billion dollar idea, write it all out for the world to see, and it still gets ignored or ridiculed by everyone. It's also funny how you can take two of the greatest minds in our generation and dismiss them out of hand, mostly due to your previous biases of what you think they are all about. If email cost the sender 1 cent per email, spam could have been eliminated. This system would do the same thing. 5 cents to post, 1 cent to comment, 1 cent to upvote. 80% of money goes to poster and commenters. 20% pays the bills. Maybe a downvote option that costs 2 cents? Influencers make money. Users pay a small proportional amount to interact, free to read. Decentralization is the key, just like for crypto. No one controls the content. No one censors Hunter Biden's laptop posts. You load up with $5 and add more when you are depleted. Everything in sats or ADA, etc. It stays in your "wallet" so it can't be frozen or taken from you. You can have a tipping and buying system as well, all built in. This will happen.
- licebmi__at__ 4y ago
  You can read the same idea, time and time again in this same website, I even have heard this exact multi-billion dollar idea from my drunk cousin who is into crypto but has no idea of the complexities of running a tech business. So like always the common wisdom is that more than the idea, what matters is the implementation. And while I also share the negative outlook on these 2, I'm aware that they are part of the group who could get it done, as they have the business know how, the connections and the money. Yet like Trump before with his social network, I still don't think they can beat the network effect.
- unboxingelf 4y ago
  Mentioning BTC/LN on HN has a way of provoking irrational group think. It’s frustrating that proposing a v2 of the ad-laden hellscape that is the current internet economic structure is so vehemently opposed. But then again most folks here are probably paid in some way, shape, or form from this status quo. Anyway, great synopsis above.

bamboozled 4y ago

mw888 4y ago
Your comment serves no purpose, offers no feedback, and is rude.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  It's a genuine question? It sounds so outrageous I couldn't tell if it was satire or not? We've all become a little sensitive?
irusensei 4y ago
Please refrain from low quality snarky comments. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.[0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

willis936 4y ago

Yes, no person or organization uses money to influence social discourse.

irusensei 4y ago

Dorsey has been hitting at that for a while but AFAIK never delivered. Meanwhile some guys created Nostr[0] that is so simple and functional its comical. Basically you sign a message and broadcast to one or more relays. Its not even p2p. Keet/Holepunch[1] are based on DHT and some bittorrenty things. Basically serverless and p2p as far as I can understand. There is some scrutiny about the source code not being available but they said the project is really nascent and as soon as they clean the code they'll release it. I'd like to see that. [0] - https://nostr.com https://nostr.com [1] - https://keet.io https://keet.io None of the above projects are blockchain based and require tokens to transact although they might have some LN integration in the future.

drc500free 4y ago

"Upvoting messages with currency" is literally describing what advertising is.

rocqua 4y ago
Except that you can limit to 1 upvote per account, and use (centralized) moderation to handle sybil attacks by removing upvotes with discretion.
- wanderingbort 4y ago
  If you could do that effectively then what is the point of spending money to upvote? Also look into the current state of play to earn games [1] and some NFT auction methods where people are selling their participation quite openly [2] It’s no longer a Sybil attack if it is real people who value their moral “vote” less than the market rate of that vote. It’s just an open market encouraging wealthy participants to on-board buyable users. [1] https://restofworld.org/2021/axie-infinity/ https://restofworld.org/2021/axie-infinity/ [2] https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/04/29/please-dont-buy-a-kycd-wallet-for-the-bored-apes-teams-otherside-mint/ https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/04/29/please-dont-buy-a...
  - rocqua 4y ago
    The idea would be a fixed price for an upvote. Not to create a market, but for two other advantages. It creates a cost for bots and hence a cost for massive spam campaigns. And it creates compensation to the system for processing and displaying the content. As for people selling their vote, this occurs even without costs in the form of vote brigading, and seems pretty controllable on e.g. reddit.
    - wanderingbort 4y ago
      The market isn’t the price of the vote, it’s the price to buy someone’s vote. That’s a race to the bottom. Right now the cheapest option is a bot. A perfect anti-bot solution shifts this so that the cheapest option is the global poor. Zoom out, is the problem is manipulation not bots. Bots are just the best weapon today. Does this new scheme present a sustainable solution to manipulation? I don’t believe it does. over time, power and wealth will be more able to pay the per vote cost and raising it will disproportionately deny real peoples voice. Looping back, this is why I asked if any of it was needed once we assume the presence of a working moderation scheme (which you credit as the protection today from vote buying).

ricardobayes 4y ago

It sounds good at first, but then the biggest issue is that a platform like this becomes really susceptible to manipulation/pushing an agenda etc. Anonymous 'vote buying' is even worse than working with ads.

chrisco255 4y ago
Twitter likes / retweets are already regularly paid for. There are paid networks of accounts that will upvote and follow for money.

swamp40 4y ago

It's funny how you can take a multi-billion dollar idea, write it all out for the world to see, and it still gets ignored or ridiculed by everyone. It's also funny how you can take two of the greatest minds in our generation and dismiss them out of hand, mostly due to your previous biases of what you think they are all about. If email cost the sender 1 cent per email, spam could have been eliminated. This system would do the same thing. 5 cents to post, 1 cent to comment, 1 cent to upvote. 80% of money goes to poster and commenters. 20% pays the bills. Maybe a downvote option that costs 2 cents? Influencers make money. Users pay a small proportional amount to interact, free to read. Decentralization is the key, just like for crypto. No one controls the content. No one censors Hunter Biden's laptop posts. You load up with $5 and add more when you are depleted. Everything in sats or ADA, etc. It stays in your "wallet" so it can't be frozen or taken from you. You can have a tipping and buying system as well, all built in. This will happen.

licebmi__at__ 4y ago
You can read the same idea, time and time again in this same website, I even have heard this exact multi-billion dollar idea from my drunk cousin who is into crypto but has no idea of the complexities of running a tech business. So like always the common wisdom is that more than the idea, what matters is the implementation. And while I also share the negative outlook on these 2, I'm aware that they are part of the group who could get it done, as they have the business know how, the connections and the money. Yet like Trump before with his social network, I still don't think they can beat the network effect.
unboxingelf 4y ago
Mentioning BTC/LN on HN has a way of provoking irrational group think. It’s frustrating that proposing a v2 of the ad-laden hellscape that is the current internet economic structure is so vehemently opposed. But then again most folks here are probably paid in some way, shape, or form from this status quo. Anyway, great synopsis above.