• Glasgow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Reputation systems. There is tech that solves this but Lemmy won’t like it (blockchain)

    • lindicks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 hours ago

      You don’t need blockchain for reputations systems, lol. Stuff like Gnutella and PGP web-of-trust have been around forever. Admittedly, the blockchain can add barriers for some attacks; mainly sybil attacks, but a friend-of-a-friend/WoT network structure can mitigate that somewhat too,

      • veroxii@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Slashdot had this 20 years ago. So you’re right this is not new.or needing some new technology.

      • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Space is much more developed. Would need ever improving dynamic proof of personhood tests

        • lindicks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I think a web-of-trust-like network could still work pretty well where everyone keeps their own view of the network and their own view of reputation scores. I.e. don’t friend people you don’t know; unfriend people who you think are bots, or people who friend bots, or just people you don’t like. Just looked it up, and wikipedia calls these kinds of mitigation techniques “Social Trust Graphs” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack#Social_trust_graphs . Retroshare kinda uses this model (but I think reputation is just a hard binary, and not reputation scores).

          • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            I dont see how that stops bots really. We’re post-Turing test. In fact they could even scan previous reputation points allocation there and divise a winning strategy pretty easily.

            • lindicks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I mean, don’t friend, or put high trust on people you don’t know is pretty strong. Due to the “six degrees of separation” phenomenon, it scales pretty easily as well. If you have stupid friends that friend bots you can cut them off all, or just lower your trust in them.

              “Post-turing” is pretty strong. People who’ve spent much time interacting with LLMs can easily spot them. For whatever reason, they all seem to have similar styles of writing.

              • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                I mean, don’t friend, or put high trust on people you don’t know is pretty strong. Due to the “six degrees of separation” phenomenon, it scales pretty easily as well. If you have stupid friends that friend bots you can cut them off all, or just lower your trust in them.

                Know IRL? Seems it would inherently limit discoverability and openness. New users or those outside the immediate social graph would face significant barriers to entry and still vulnerable to manipulation, such as bots infiltrating through unsuspecting friends or malicious actors leveraging connections to gain credibility.

                “Post-turing” is pretty strong. People who’ve spent much time interacting with LLMs can easily spot them. For whatever reason, they all seem to have similar styles of writing.

                Not the good ones, many conversations online are fleeting. Those tell-tale signs can be removed with the right prompt and context. We’re post turing in the sense that in most interactions online people wouldn’t be able to tell they were speaking to a bot, especially if they weren’t looking - which most aren’t.

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Are they just putting everything on layer 1, and committing to low fees? If so, then it won’t remain decentralized once the blocks are so big that only businesses can download them.

          • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            It has adjustable block size and computational cost limits through miner voting, NiPoPoWs enable efficient light clients. Storage Rent cleans up old boxes every four years. Pruned (full) node using a UTXO Set Snapshot is already possible.

            Plus you don’t need to bloat the L1, can be done off-chain and authenticated on-chain using highly efficient authenticated data structures.