The practical and social problems of distributed/decentralized social networks seems to far outweigh the gains in terms of anti-censorship/network resilience.
Reddit already suffers from a thing known as 'karma whoring', where users will work hard simply to gain karma points, often to the detriment of the quality of the community they're interacting with.
Karma points have absolutely no financial benefit or real worth outside of the status some internet denizens attach to them. I have struggled to imagine a single way of introducing financial incentives for Reddit participation that wouldn't ultimately fall prey to this.
It's also hard to conceive how moderation/curation might work in a distributed/decentralized system.
To put it simply, I've come to the conclusion that censorship is an often required tool in creating internet communities where everyone can feel welcome and safe.
I'm not sure how that would work in a distributed system.
I had this idea a while ago and started trying to write it. I really hope something comes out of all of the different approaches people are taking to this problem.
The solutions has been implemented at least twice, first with Newsgroups kill files and now with Twitter's block lists.
Users would publish a feed with messages and user that they think should be blocked, and others could subscribe to those feeds. To diminish moderator abuse, you could tell your client to only block messages/users which have been blocked by two or more of people.
(1) Reddit is in the news now. Fred's post
also mentions the challenge of how to
manage a social site, e.g., Reddit,
that depends on a lot
of volunteer workers.
(2) Fred is highly interested in nearly
everything about BitCoin and blockchains.
(3) Fred runs a popular blog, AVC.com,
and he regards it as an important part
of his business as a VC. In this blog,
Fred sees himself as a bartender who
watches as others interact.
In addition, IMHO, Fred likes to toss out
ideas that are easy to comment on because
they are deliberately incomplete and can
easily be made more complete or
deliberately not very good or very well
supported so that they can easily
be improved on.
So, he tossed out something about
social site management and the blockchain.
From 50,000 feet up, the point of
mentioning a blockchain for site
management is that a blockchain
can be distributed in
In particular, with that post, Fred
kept up interest in social sites,
one of his favorite ideas, "a large
collection of engaged users"
that can form a barrier to entry,
and blockchain. And he got some
Some of the commenters may have
spent more time on their comments
than Fred did on his post!
>Conceptually, we believe that embedded mining will ultimately establish bitcoin as a fundamental system resource on par with CPU, bandwidth, hard drive space, and RAM.
Really all this article suggests is a p2p network where you are paid small amounts of BTC to be a peer (and pay to access other peers) and upvotes send BTC to the poster. It's a ludicrous idea that would never work. Reddit works because, among other things, votes/karma is worthless. Everyone's vote counts equally and everyone can vote on everything once. To tie voting to BTC or incentivize people to scam/cheat/lie for real money is just idiotc.
Also the blockchain will not be used to "host" the new reddit and other people (wrong people) have suggested.
Now an identity linked to the blockchain, used to access a decentralized reddit of nodes that contained subreddits which could be synced to other nodes (think newsgroups/usenet) but with anyone being able to run a node and set retention rates on posts/comments might work. Anyone could archive off bits and pieces of it (a la google groups) but some might only be hosted on 1 node or require some kind of key or password to access the content so "dark" sub reddits. The big problem is voting, and I'm not sure if a system like this could support anonymous voting. I'm guessing not but I'm no expert.
Everyone can vote on everything once is also suspect, since many users have secondary accounts.
So at reddit, voting is already tied to an incentive like BTC, and until the censorship incidents it was working rather well.
Submitters: HN prefers original sources, especially when some site has shamelessly ripped off somebody else's work and stuck a baitylicious title on it. Please do your due diligence and post the real thing. The community will appreciate it, and the discussion will be better, since ripoffs tend also to be dumb.
The idea was a reddit-style AMA site where questions would each get a bitcoin address assigned to them. The Bitcoin sent to that address would be a bounty for the AMA subject to be able to claim after answering.
I for one am hesitant to rely on a 'reddit p2p network' for which I have to seed with bitcoins.
Are there any estimates and just how much that cost/"incentive" per user is?
> Furthermore, when a user upvotes content, that sends a small amount of bitcoin to the author of that content, thus incentivizing the production of good content
How do you deincentivize folks from gaming that? Would we potentially run into a situation where new forms of online publishing are going to arise, where instead of being funded by Google Ads they are now funded directly by users liking their content? Will curators of cat pictures become overnight millionaires?
Here's what I wrote elsewhere:
tl/dr: I want it because I don't expect something for nothing. If someone provides me value, I want to exchange something in return.
There may be times when building something on the blockchain makes a really big difference (i.e. payments or other spaces in which trust really matters, or the combination of data being publicly available yet encrypted for private parties matters).
There will also be times when people advocate building x on the blockchain and x could really be built with any *SQL database, but blockchain is sexy right now.
Back in the mid 90s of those expounding on the potential and promise of the internet some no doubt had direct financial ties to its further development, but many others likely didn't, academics, govt people, etc.
Are there any academics, or NGO people, or similar who are super excited about bitcoin, or have some insight into future applications?