A Reputation Ranking of account can be used to prevent bot meanwhile still maintain easy-to-access to public.
Say a Reputation Score of an account is between 0 and 100, and an account can only participate certain activities based on its score :
score 0 : fetch data from network
higher than score 20 : store data to network
higher than score 40 : farming
higher than score 60 : spend safecoin (transfer safecoin out of the account)
higher than score 80 : vote (actually, when someone issue a poll, the min score can be specified)
100 : other opertions require extreme confidential
To gain reputation score :
1, Pay safecoin to purchase the score : say 10 safecoin per score point
(the price shall be a fixed number, as although the price of safecoin might be rise, it also reflect the fact that the reputation linked to an account is risen as well. So, the cost to created rspected accounts shall also be raised)
When safecoin is paid to gain reputation score, coins are ārecycledā, i.e. marked as non-occupied so anyone can farm it again.
A threshold might be applied, say you canāt buy reputation points if your score is above 60.
2, Through various verification method (such method must be approved by the community).
Such as, if speech capcha is used, gain 40 points
If face recognition is used, gain 40 points
(there will be lots of cost/effort need to be put to adopt such verification process, and the process might not be welcomed by all users. We shall make such verification to be optional not mandatory. And we shall not let the verificatio process itself hinder the deployment of network)
People donāt need to pay anything if they only just want to access the network to have a taste of whatās happening.
If they want to store something to network, a small fee will be charged or they have to go through some verification process, to prevent bot.
A higher fee might be charged if they are willing to be involved in other confidential activities.
I think this is a great solution, overall. There are a few changes I would suggest though.
I think in order to be in a consensus chain, you should be of one of the higher ranks. This means you have a vested interest in NOT seeing the network or the currency connected to it fail. It also gets rid of the sybil attach arguments Iāve seen flying around lately. You canāt just spin up a ton of vaults, you have to have a rank that youāve earned, one way or another.
I also think that you should be able to earn (not just pay) to all ranks. Sure it should take longer, but we want to be inclusive of all users, even those who donāt have a starting capital to join the network.
your 60 rank excludes your lower ranks if you want to buy your way inā¦
You could add ātitlesā to each rank that grants extra privileges. People love titles and relate to it better than numbers. Below are some examples. I suggest some changes in bold below.
80 - 99 = Council Member : + Voting & Elder Nominations
100 = Elder : ???
Iām sure we can tweak it to make it more adoption friendly while instilling a sense of ownership as a person rises through the ranks. As @wes stated, paying safecoin should not be the only method to gain rank past 40.
Something about a visible ranking system rubs me the wrong way. I understand if thereās a backend or user-side ranking for purposes of legitimacy within the network, but Iāve always found front-end titles to be off putting. Like in forums, people wearing rank like badges of honor. Like that episode of Community this past season riffing on Loganās Run. Theyāre self-fulfilling in many ways.
I think you want to maintain a feeling of equality at the lowest level (the lowest being the MaidSafe network itself) and leave the visible ranking systems up to apps and communities built on top.
I can see this painting ourselves in a corner right out of the gate. Iād imagine the ranking system is specifically for controlling abuse of the system, not for the gamifaction of the network.
Are you oppose to the ranking system all together or just the title aspect?
The ranking system is a direct contradiction of equality. Even without titles, you still have to climb the numbered levels to gain privileges. Saying we need to maintain a feeling of equality is more like deception IMO.
I want to be honest about what we are telling users, titles or no titles.
This is a barrier to adoption, not because of the cost but because youāre making people jump through hoops. In my opinion joining the network should cost as little effort as possible. I think exclusivity is only appealing to people who are already interested in this kind of thing. Those who donāt really see the value immediately wonāt be willing to put in effort just to try it out.
I agree with this.
In general, I think the core MaidSAFE network should be implemented in such a way that there is nothing to be abused by multiple accounts or bots. This does exclude certain mechanics (like giving a limited amount of resources for free to every account and require payment for extra), but the alternative is more problematic and less desirable in my view, for reasons already stated in this discussion by others.
To me it seems clear no reliable POH can be developed in the short term thatās not either annoying, or prone to loss of privacy and/or freedom or other kinds of abuse. If a working concept of POH is found, it would seem more fitting for a layer on top of the core network or something like MaidSAFE 2.0.
Iām not opposed to a ranking system with private user-side visibility (as opposed to public visibility) that is used by the autonomous network in validity you humanness.
I donāt think that the core network should be used to make crowdsourced moral judgement calls on people, and Iām definitely not for applying terms
Agreed, thatās what I meant by this:
I think thatās information helpful for the network and the user, but is too prone to abuse if other users can affect rank. Also, I think applying titles becomes an issue of culture boundaries. Theyāre terms that can quickly become dated or not work across all cultures. The cuter a name is, the less fondly the next decade will look back on it.
I genuinely donāt see this as a high barrier to entry. Or, rather, I can see ways to make the difficulty low. Iād imagine its not higher than, say, entering your legit email address, going to your email, confirming, logging in. I completely understand wanting a low-to-no barrier of entry, but things like CAPTCHAs feel like ālittle dutch boyā solutions. Not to mention how my anxiety goes up 3 clicks every time I see one of those things appear in front of me.
Iād imagine safecoin faucets would come into existence, as well as other things where getting a small amount of coins would be easy. Friends giving them out, social network distribution.
Most of the other systems seem extremely complicated and would need constant upkeep.
Those who donāt see immediate value probably arenāt likely to adopt at this stage. If a service has something real to offer, people will want to adopt it. Not just privacy (which is a nice thing to have but not a real selling point as weāve seen a million times over). It needs a strong hook, and if this service can deliver on one of itās promises of being a cheap solution for storing and distributing data quickly, I can promise you people will make the effort. If I told someone that they could back up all their stuff safely, have access to it anywhere, and pay a fraction (if even that) of what theyāre paying now (a lot), good lordā¦ the adoption rate would be outrageous.
Can you give me an example of a situation where this becomes overbearing? Do you think eliminating any barrier to entry is better than a small barrier to entry?
EDIT: I just read earlier in the thread about paying for reputation (I glossed over it before). I think I prefer that method. It provides exactly the same solution without the barrier of entry. I love that idea.
IMO ranking labels are better than numbers because they are more friendly and memorable.
I think we can come up with a scheme that is non-prejudicial and culture neutral, and timeless. Was Loganās run colours? I think it was, and colours seems a good example: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet is universally translatable and easily localised into different languages. It may not be as cross cultural as we need, if for example it has unwanted associations for some cultures, but if these arenāt strong it could still work.
If we make the NT (Network Trust) ranking private between the Network and the User, then we can allow the user to rename the title/label to their liking, or use the default number system. This is a symbiotic relationship.
John Doe says to the SAFE Network, āProtect my data and Iāll provide you with resources.ā
PS: I love colors! I prefer Elite over Oligarch, lol! Iām kidding.
Iām pretty strongly against both of these in a global context. I get it on a forum about gardening or crocheting or chess. Unique communities with internal ranks. But I think the idea behind MaidSafe is to become a new backbone. I donāt think you want to create a social class system around the foundation.
Unless Iām misunderstanding the context here. @happybeing, can you give me an example of where this could prove helpful?
@russell Iām arguing for labels rather than numbers, not for or against a ranking system. I donāt share your phobia, but I donāt see an obvious need for a public grading system at this point.
Ranking IMO is valid and useful in its place. Overdoing equality is as bad as overdoing hierarchy. We need both in their place. For example: Equal rights, value as human beings = good. Equal priveliges regardless of competance, integrity etc = bad.
Ahh, I see. No, I wasnāt saying a label system without rank. I was suggesting we donāt need to use a labels that carry a rank-meaning (such as novice, journeyman, master).
Hmm, Iām reading back over the thread. Maybe someone can reiterate for me, what is determining rank?
My concern is strictly in the context of people rating other people, which I think can be self-perpetuating and is not an example of where crowds make good decisions. If rank is only defined by empirical things and opinion, then Iām not opposed to anything.
This is what we are talking about. There is no mention of a user arbitrarily ranking another user.
I would also suggest a user can gain rank by providing resources which shows they are supporting the Network.
EDIT: Change āPORā to āResourcesā to avoid confusion. We could use a simple timestamp to measure account age, combined with a PUT/GET counter to evaluate a users level of support. Or allow node ranks to give bonus points. Now the Network builds trust, using the following: Time + Activity + Resources + Safecoin.
The results are not entirely comforting. āSeventeen of our participants correctly matched all ten of their labels, and 69% of participants matched at least 5 out of ten labels correctly,ā they say.
The concept is analogous to the Avatar grid above, but it would be interesting to run the same test on Mechanical Turk to see whether remembering faces gets much closer to 100% success.
I really donāt like the idea of paying to use maidsafe services. Iād rather put up with bots than have to pay for services. To me paying for services is a philosophical affront and would detter me from using the system. Madsafe is an excellent system and Iād use it because I knew itās merit however if I was a new user and didnāt know anything about it and was told I had to pay to use all these services and the excuse given was āwe want to prove youāre a human beingā Iād find a different service instead. Yaāll seem very comfortable doling out your cash and think itās perfectly acceptable to ask someone to pay for a service. What you fail to realize is asking someone to pay for something says a great deal about the service and the people that make it. Itās a big philosophic statement. One of the things about open source I like is that by and large itās gratis, that itās purpose driven, that itās worked on, developed and given away for free. Not always but to a large degree.
I shouldnāt have to pay to use features of software that I have downloaded and want to just up and use.
as for the ranking system isnāt the point of maidsafe to be anonymous? And already weāre introducing a hiarchy. What if I want to download maidsafe and start farming right away? What if I want to vote? I can only vote on issues if Iāve farmed so much coin? And I canāt farm until Iāve dished out another amount of coin?
