
Show HN: Updn – HN/Reddit-style site where stories, votes, tips use Bitcoin - aaron-lebo
https://github.com/fisher-lebo/updn
======
shazow
If anybody wants to see how this played out in 2010-2011, search for
"Witcoin":

[https://www.google.com/search?q=witcoin](https://www.google.com/search?q=witcoin)

At the peak it was a neat site, and some folks made a bit of money. If I
recall correctly, there as a bit of a problem where NSFW posts were more
profitable than most other kinds of posts. For some reason, the creator was
unable to keep it running and didn't want to hand it off, so it was shut down.

It worked by depositing Bitcoins which got converted into "Witcoins", an off-
chain micro-transaction credit system. You could convert back into Bitcoins at
any time.

I suspect the micro-transaction aspect of it was not as harmful as one would
expect. The model seemed to work at the modest scale it grew to.

~~~
gpmcadam
See also [https://flattr.com/](https://flattr.com/)

------
terhechte
I wrote something similar as a service for DogeCoin with an API that can be
integrated in any kind of site. I.e. you could let people upvote anything on
your site by utilizing the API.

If anybody is interested in using this on his/her site, feel free to contact
me.

It is currently in private beta (sort of).

~~~
livingparadox
I'm interested in seeing where it goes. Do you have a website for it yet?

~~~
terhechte
No, not yet I got sidetracked by other projects, but once I have a website,
I'll post it on HN.

------
herendin
I wonder if it would be an effective gaming strategy to build momentum for my
posts by upvoting them myself, and hope to reap a profit when other people add
their votes

~~~
ZirconCode
I have the feeling that it would become a cesspool of such and similar
strategies.

------
3rd3
It would be great if one could somehow ensure that the original content
creators would receive the money (similar to
[http://flattr.com](http://flattr.com)), not the people who submit links. That
would require some moderation though. I think it's fine to receive only
internet points for submitting a link instead of materialistic value. If the
author of a submission does not accept payment the donations could be used to
break even with server maintenance and moderation costs.

------
Sir_Cmpwn
"Comments are free" seems like a poor choice. Comments should be the most
expensive, in my opinion.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Do you mind explaining why?

I wanted to give people who don't have Bitcoin a way to get involved without
having to register through an exchange or use localbitcoins, etc.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
Anything to fight the "don't read the comments" attitude people have adopted
when using the internet. By requiring a tangible investment in your comment,
it helps ensure people will make more succinct threads and spend less time
trolling.

~~~
krapp
Trolls may well be willing to pay to play, and corporations definitely will,
but it seems to me that it might accidentally dampen attempts at casual or in-
depth conversation. The fewer people who participate in a community, or become
invested in it through interacting with other users, the quicker it'll die.

------
redthrowaway
Seems like an interesting idea, but I think you would have been far better off
supporting doge out of the box. The dogecoin community _loves_ tipping. It's
pretty much the only thing doge is used for. I suspect they'd be far more
eager early adopters than bitcoin users.

------
brotoss
Have you seen the kind of crap that gets upvotes on reddit? It's all low-
effort content and rehashed memes.

Maybe if downvotes were free this could work.

~~~
dpcucoreinfo
If people are willing to pay for reposts who are we to deny them that?

------
microcolonel
It'll be interesting when somebody says "My three cents" instead of "My two
cents".

------
joelthelion
How will you handle spam?

~~~
krapp
A system like this might encourage spam, as the more popular it becomes, the
more it's worth the incentive for spammers to "participate."

On the one hand, there's a lot about this kind of setup I don't like - but on
the other, monetizing spam and trolls does appeal to me on some level.

[http://xkcd.com/810/](http://xkcd.com/810/)

------
command_line
As a competitor, this is exciting.

Updn is effectively what valME.io [1] does (although valME has many more bells
and whistles, doesn't require someone technical to install and run it, uses
bitcoin and PayPal, etc.).

It is especially encouraging to see this open sourced. One of the goals of
valME is to find ways where content consumers can bypass the behemoth
publishing and media industries and financially support our favorite content
providers directly. Could micropayments to bloggers, authors, writers,
musicians, et al. not only add-up to an important stream of income but also
provided significant competition to the publishing oligopolies?

I'd like to see the concept taken even further. For example, search engines:
could upvotes/downvotes be used for search algorithm rankings, upending the
SEO industry? How about books? What if authors published their books on open
platforms where readers could upvote and/or tip the author as they read (e.g.,
"I really enjoyed that chapter, so I'm going to upvote it and give the author
a few cents/bitcoins")? How about applied to the king of question/answer sites
- StackOverflow? I know there are plenty of SO coders who deserve more than
our non-tangible upvotes for the time and effort they saved us. Music? Upvote
the song and give revenues directly to the band, bypassing the big media
houses.

Advertising is currently the primary source of revenue for most websites and
content providers. Micropayments based on voting and tipping could change this
revenue model. What would happen if it did? Would content quality increase?
Would it become easier for unknown content providers to gain visibility? Would
search results become more useful? Would companies like Facebook and Google be
forced to change their business models? Would copyright legislation become
less relevant?

Technologies like Updn and valME are about upending the entire revenue model
for news, social media, blogs, forums, and search engines - advertising. They
could give unknown, quality content providers a real, viable alternative to
working for the mainstream media or writing blog posts that aren't even
getting a few pennies from Google AdSense. They could take power away from the
entertainment lobbying companies. They could even help encourage teens to
write and create outside of 140 characters, a snap of a camera, or a silly
Facebook post.

But, philosophically, they can also help encourage a few thoughts that apply
outside of what we do online. There is too often a belief that someone should
get something for nothing; get something without effort; get something without
paying for it; get something without trading for it. People forget that there
is always a price for value. They forget that someone, eventually, has to pay.
The Internet is a hotbed for reinforcing the idea of something for nothing.

We need to reduce the power of advertising dollars on the Web. We need to give
content creators a different viable distribution channel to make money in
order to reduce the power of copyright lobbying efforts. Directionally, Updn
is a great way to do that and, as a competitor, I hope it is successful and we
see more like it.

[1] valME.io - [http://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/kqqqs/how-valme-
works/](http://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/kqqqs/how-valme-works/)

~~~
TheyCalledHimBo
You make sweeping claims like > Technologies like Updn and valME are about
upending the entire revenue model for news, social media, blogs, forums, and
search engines

Yet this site looks only marginally more alive than, say Digg. You've provided
a content /aggregation/ site that you now have to pay for in order to actually
contribute or effect in any way. It isn't really about the amount or the
method in which you pay, it's the fact that you HAVE TO. Reddit is constantly
mocking itself and the karma system because people are scamming other to get
worthless internet points. Now you want to try and tie a dollar value to that
and think that you're innovating?

Granted I think some of your ideas are actually interesting. Creating a
micropayment system for content creators (Note: not content gatherer) to allow
more independents to thrive is a wonderful goal. You however seem to be
creating exactly the opposite, where money can be quite literally thrown at a
post in order to force it into visibility. More so Updn (not sure about valME)
has a cost associated with down-voting. Enter Company A which drops, say, 20$
to put in hundreds or thousands of upvotes for a press-release. Users would
effectively have to pay to get an advertisement off their front page in order
to find anything worth a damn.

My final point will relate to your philosophy and as such is totally
subjective. I honestly don't understand where your remarks about "something
for nothing" actually relate in this post, but I find them borderline absurd.
You brush aside those who create for the sake of creation, like I would
imagine the tens of thousands of coders and designers who frequent this site
do on a daily basis.

You seem to strive to bring together as many soundbyte worthy ideas as
possible to entice people into using a product that, it appears, no one wants
to. The the space of a few paragraphs you mention: overthrowing advertising,
supporting independents, copyright legislation, encouraging youth, Ann Rand-
esque philosophy, distribution of wealth away from corporate entities, and
copyright lobbying. All in all this sums up to something slightly less than a
bad joke.

~~~
command_line
valME is young, granted. That doesn't discount the idea.

Yes, any content provider can throw money (via fake accounts, advertising,
etc.) at their own content to increase visibility. That's why advertising
works. On sites like reddit and FB, it costs the content providers effectively
nothing to manipulate votes. On sites like valME and Updn, there will be a
(minimal) cost. It's a small barrier for manipulation, but a barrier
nonetheless. That, alone, should reduce vote manipulation significantly.

valME also has a cost for downvoting. When you downvote on valME, it costs you
2 karma (and your downvote removes 1 karma from the content provider). This
should significantly reduce downvote brigades as there's now a barrier to
downvote.

Because moderators (and everyone else) can now see who is voting and in what
direction they are voting, users who manipulate voting will be more obvious to
everyone. Mods can then change permissions (both for domains and users) or use
the modqueue to remove posts. (If mods remove posts and comments, like Upde,
there's a public trail and a reason required. Additionally, the posts are
taken out of the community's queue but still are accessible in the "graveyard"
to prevent censorship.)

You're correct - many coders and designers do create for the sake of creation.
More power to them. But you can't live off that. There is great content out
there on various blogs and, if they don't have a donation button, the most I
can do to really reward them when I like something is clicking on some random
ad so they get the credit. Technologies like this, with the cost of a penny or
two, don't put up a large barrier for content creators, and it gives them an
alternative to advertising. It also gives them the potential for a huge upside
when people really value their content.

The market here isn't for content providers of memes or 140-character
comments. It's for higher quality content providers. I'm not sure why you're
scared of the idea to find alternatives for rewarding people who give us
value.

~~~
walden42
> On sites like reddit and FB, it costs the content providers effectively
> nothing to manipulate votes.

But that's offset by the sheer volume of people who can freely vote. If you
have a system where a vote is a payment, you'll likely have a >95% reduction
of legitimate voters, and likely a much higher amount of "gamed" voters as a
result. Remember, corporations and governments have more money to spend than
the average person. I.e. All governments/corporations can afford to spend
money + some individuals can spend money. Compare that with: All
governments/corporations can freely upvote + all individuals can freely
upvote. Requiring money actually skews voting in the wrong direction.

That's why I think Reddit made a smart decision when they implemented Reddit
guilding for top-level comments. They did it in such a way that guilding
doesn't affect voting, and guilded comments can't even be seen from the
homepage--otherwise it would skew the results.

I do totally agree about other ways to support creators, though. I think it's
crucial for sites like StackOverflow to implement direct tipping for users'
efforts.

~~~
command_line
You might be right - that, ultimately, we find that the system can be gamed
more. That's not our hunch, and it's way too early to tell at this point, but
we won't ignore the results if that's how it turns out.

StackOverflow really needs to implement this functionality, though. The hours
upon hours we've saved by some of the answers there really deserved a real
reward.

------
jhrobert
Quid délégation, liquid demo style?

------
Dirlewanger
As if a hivemind site like reddit (that's already littered with blatant
advertisement posts) wasn't enough, this one proclaims, "Let's just skip the
bullshit...you can buy all the top posts!" Seriously people, what actual
beneficence will this bring to the table?

~~~
smokeyj
Grrr, technology make Dirlewanger mad!

Having readers tipping histories encoded in a blockchain could make it easier
to filter out spam via network analysis algos. Large chunks of money coming
from brand new addresses wouldn't carry as much weight as old wallets with
similar patterns as your own.

~~~
Dirlewanger
One can put in all the safeguards they want, but you really underestimate how
far private entities with seemingly-bottomless coffers will go to get a
message across, especially if its traffic is lush with its target demographic.
I'm not trying to be pessimistic; this shit happens everyday on reddit, and a
variant of this scenario that went too far sent Digg to the grave.

~~~
smokeyj
I haven't given it much thought, but that seems like a reason to support a
blockchain based voting system. If votes are transparently logged then end
users can rely on their own readers/clients to find relevant content. As you
upvote and downvote you can train the client to learn which wallets/tips are
credible/relevant and which aren't.

edit: I'm basically describing pandora for content based on blockchain data --
where anyone is free to modify the learning algos. Can someone please make
that happen? Thanks.

