[aantthony]

Hey everyone,

This is a project I'm working on to get more truth on the internet. If deemed factual by the network, you gain more tokens from those who voted opposite to you. It uses the logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR), and after one side holds a majority for 7 days, that side is paid out (no real money is involved yet, points are all free).

What do you think?

[uniqueid]

I applaud your effort, but, while there may actually be a single version of truth in the universe, there is effectively no good way to prove it.

I don't think a show of hands is helpful. I regularly encounter Reddit threads with 95% of the comments agreeing on something that elsewhere in the thread is clearly shown to be dis- or mis- information.

Cutting out political bias also fails to solve problems, because there are plenty of gullible, but "unbiased", fools out there, whose fact-checking isn't valuable. In fact, fools on the internet unwittingly do plenty of legwork for clever propagandists.

In my opinion, what would be useful is to allow the user to choose other users whom he or she trusts, and get a truth score based on their opinions. Create that and I'll be the first to join.

[aantthony]

Thanks for your feedback.

Just to be clear, its more than a show of hands because you choose how many tokens you want to stake. So in the Reddit example, if those 5% were willing to stake more, they’d have majority.

I chose to not go with a choose your trust model because I think the truthfulness information is a ‘what’ question, and checking ‘who’ only goes so far. But once those trustworthy users earn more tokens, they should have a larger influence on the system. Perhaps that would interest you?

[notduncansmith]

What is the process for overturning a ruling? I worked with some blockchain folks on this concept and I will say, it is rife with challenges.

The most important thing you can do right now, if you want people to invest their energy in this app, is to convince people that you understand the human relationship with truth-seeking well enough to optimize the process with technology. That will take some thoughtful writing.

[aantthony]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

> What is the process for overturning a ruling?

The staking is open for 7 days, so discussion and adding more stakes is fine during that phase. But after 7 days, since it's tokens, it cannot reverse the transaction. However, I plan to allow "re-posting" the Tweet, and then it will show the new updated consensus (with a button to view the old one).

> ... to convince people that you understand the human relationship with truth-seeking well enough to optimize the process with technology. That will take some thoughtful writing.

Yeah, exactly right. That has been very challenging so far, but I'm making some progress, and working on this. Is there anything on the subject that has made a difference for you personally, perhaps for ideas and inspiration?

Thanks

[oltdaniel]

I think, the core system isn't thought through correctly. I mean, as I have see clicking on different facts that habe been checked, I can place one or dozens of votes for my opinion. What if there is a user thaz gained so many vote tokens and just outvotes other opiniond on something?

A vote should be binary. I can or can't vote. Summary: The main idea is kinda ok, but the system to solve it isn't something I would trust.

Correct me, if I misunderstood something.

[aantthony]

I want the staking mechanism to incentivise truth. Binary votes don't provide such a system. Binary votes (aka polls) can be useful to gauge opinions, but are insufficient to aggregate knowledge, and can easily be manipulated. Take for instance the stock market. If all a trader could do was make a binary decision of "Is this company good?" and they only get one vote, that doesn't generate any useful information. But instead ask them how much they're willing to pay for a share, then now we have high quality data about the value of a company, and that is hard to manipulate.