You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Hive5 - IDEAS for Public, Witness & Dev consideration v1.3.1

in Deep Dives7 months ago

Great point Atma! If a friend of mine posts something of value, I'll probably upvote it, which helps out their reputation score. I do not upvote absolutely everything that a friend of mine posts though, or at least not a 100% upvote. That in itself creates that web of trust imo, since it shows that I am not a "yes man" and don't just agree with him/her because we are friends. True friends are encouraged to express their true opinions with one another. Now that friend knows for certain that they will always get the honest truth from me, even if it initially might feel hurtful. Trust is earned.

Sort:  

Hey Ken. i wonder if you see the essential need for anonymity of members in community governance consensus decisions?

Peace & love brother

Hey Atma! :)
I do indeed and that is one reason why I had invested on $OXEN originally. Random, anonymous Service Nodes. Just stake some coin into one and you don't really know whom the money is going to. Recently, they are deciding to change their coin agi thoug and remove some of the private features, so I am rethinking that coin now. I think some gov agents must have pressured them (those guys mostly work together in an office), just a vibe I get.

Anyway, a massive change like that for Hive just isn't feasible at the moment, it would literally mean thousands of lines of new code and would affect many other variables on the chain. Hive is like the antithesis of vote anonymity. We are a transparency chain, not a privacy chain.

Right, understood. The governance consensus/voting mechanism could be done on a separate chain, but as you say that's too massive for Hive at the moment. It would need to be tried and tested elsewhere first. And there are some setting up in that way already.

i'm aware of the Oxen issues, also having a few.

The algorithm which adjusts Reputation score up or down, depending upon such factors as up/down votes received, would need to have a weighting factor for each category of factors. Make sense?

Yes, the reputation scoring system does need some work, but I think a couple the core devs are already on it.

The way i see it is that there could/would be 2 different Trusted Reputation scores.

  1. For the anonymous member of the community governance governance system.
  2. For the pseudo-anonymous or not anonymous members of the group being governed (in a DAO like structure). This is the Reputation score formed within public chat-room / forums or RL actions etc.

The two Reputation scores for each person would not be linked, i don't think.