3 ms·

1) The site has a nice design. Yet, the text in the buttons can be selected, but the hashes in the top lists cannot. 2) I cannot find one of the top hashes whe

by slushh 3y ago

1) The site has a nice design. Yet, the text in the buttons can be selected, but the hashes in the top lists cannot. 2) I cannot find one of the top hashes when searching for it. Shouldn't there be an entry? 3) Votes can be abused. Have you considered comments to add more depth? 4) What's your contingency plan? Who owns the data? Why should people build or defend their reputation on your platform? 5) The url for a searched hash is not compatible with forms Overall, it would be nice if there was another trust provider on the internet. Perhaps you can generalize the concept and offer trust for all accounts. E.g. there could be an independent evaluation of Twitter and ActivityPub accounts.

WernerVdM 3y ago
Oh yeah thats the dream. To offer a 3rd party opinion on these generic forms of "verication". I mean whats the point of a twitter blue tick when you can simply buy them... And yes I do agree that it is in our interest to keep it generalized and domain unspecific. 1. Yes excuse my noob skills. I am still learning a lot. That's partly why I made it open source, so that other can contribute if they wanted. I'm still trying to get the UI polished. 2. The top addressses are from mocked data right now. Right now the only live features are registration, reporting and searching. Viewing top addresses in each category is the next feature I am finishing. Sorry if that was not clear, I'll add a disclaimer. 3. I don't want to add comments as this starts becoming a duplicate of Etherscan then. I'd rather focus on simplicity for now. We have it so that only verified users may vote, to partially stop votes from being abused. 3. The contingency plan against what exactly? Since the data is attached to a token and the token given to the user, I'd argue that the users owns their own data. We as Open Info do currently regulate the data though. But only initially. Once an address's status is determined, it is up to the community votes to second Open Info's classification Simply put, I would recommend someone build or defend their reputation on my platform as it can always be linked back to their Ethereum address. For people who use burner addresses, this tool would be useless. However, I personally would consider interacting with a burner address as a concern. I would prefer to interact with someone who has previous payment references to use as an indication of a successful delivery of goods. Closest comparisons to my goal with this platform would be certik. What differentiates this however is that it is aimed towards an individual using an address as payment for some service or product. 5. Once again, excuse my frontend skills. I'm not sure I understand though? Would you care to elaborate please and I'll try and improve it.
- slushh 3y ago
  5. When you search at google, the url is https://www.google.com/search?q=vrfd https://www.google.com/search?q=vrfd, your url is https://vrfd.info/0x567d5bc5dcc2cccf1610c18240b0eddd7a621ef2 https://vrfd.info/0x567d5bc5dcc2cccf1610c18240b0eddd7a621ef2 I would say that using the query parameter makes it easier to integrate the page with tools like browser address bars or third party forms.

by slushh 3y ago

WernerVdM 3y ago

Oh yeah thats the dream. To offer a 3rd party opinion on these generic forms of "verication". I mean whats the point of a twitter blue tick when you can simply buy them... And yes I do agree that it is in our interest to keep it generalized and domain unspecific. 1. Yes excuse my noob skills. I am still learning a lot. That's partly why I made it open source, so that other can contribute if they wanted. I'm still trying to get the UI polished. 2. The top addressses are from mocked data right now. Right now the only live features are registration, reporting and searching. Viewing top addresses in each category is the next feature I am finishing. Sorry if that was not clear, I'll add a disclaimer. 3. I don't want to add comments as this starts becoming a duplicate of Etherscan then. I'd rather focus on simplicity for now. We have it so that only verified users may vote, to partially stop votes from being abused. 3. The contingency plan against what exactly? Since the data is attached to a token and the token given to the user, I'd argue that the users owns their own data. We as Open Info do currently regulate the data though. But only initially. Once an address's status is determined, it is up to the community votes to second Open Info's classification Simply put, I would recommend someone build or defend their reputation on my platform as it can always be linked back to their Ethereum address. For people who use burner addresses, this tool would be useless. However, I personally would consider interacting with a burner address as a concern. I would prefer to interact with someone who has previous payment references to use as an indication of a successful delivery of goods. Closest comparisons to my goal with this platform would be certik. What differentiates this however is that it is aimed towards an individual using an address as payment for some service or product. 5. Once again, excuse my frontend skills. I'm not sure I understand though? Would you care to elaborate please and I'll try and improve it.

slushh 3y ago
5. When you search at google, the url is https://www.google.com/search?q=vrfd https://www.google.com/search?q=vrfd, your url is https://vrfd.info/0x567d5bc5dcc2cccf1610c18240b0eddd7a621ef2 https://vrfd.info/0x567d5bc5dcc2cccf1610c18240b0eddd7a621ef2 I would say that using the query parameter makes it easier to integrate the page with tools like browser address bars or third party forms.