liamzebedee
commented
5 years ago More thoughts
last thought, this is a design for reputation consensus I'm brewing over. Nodes perform work for some user U. The work is expensive/impossible to verify, so it is merely notarised onchain.
The mechanism we are desigining is so videos are transcoded correctly to some quality level.
We can reduce our exposure (function of event) to something without understanding the event itself.
We can reduce our exposure to encoding issues without understanding good quality encoding ourselves.
How do we determine correct quality level? It's a market.
As long as we can reduce the bad apples, we will be okay.
How do we know bad apples? By reputation
If a node transcodes poorly, they will receive poor reviews.
How do we know poor transcoding? 90% percentile.
You pay and you review. If the quality was bad, you can attest to it. Other nodes then adjudicate, by either voting or reproducing the work.
The node then is placed lower in the queue in terms of reputation, and incurs a penalty.
Realistically, reputation is a mechanism which insures against the group's subjectivity.
Reputation mechanics are different to POW consensus, because they rely on a subjectively valued work that can't be approximated with an objective function like POW.
Transcoding network =
proof of work = transcode a video
reward = reputation
payment = network token
objectives:
video is encoded to agreed standard
mechanism:
work is given to those who have reputation
adjudication can occur when work is disputed
the community can vote BASED on their reputation as to the outcome
mechanisms:
reputation is used for voting
users buy reputation from other members
they then pay the network for services
if there is adjudication necessary, those trust relationships are used
you buy TRANSCODE tokens from some node
they can mint these proportional to their reputation
you exchange them to another node for services
the node thus gains an endorsement from the node that sold them to you
however if the services are poor, then adjudication occurs
node's place votes on whether it was up to scratch
basically a way to scale trust
we record all bonds created between exchanges
so a transcoder performs transcoding for you, I give you a good recommendation
how does my reputation mean to another person?
the value of the transcoding is measured in x
but the risk of malfeasance is measured in y
y is reputation
we want the risk to be minimised
so if a validator is bad - this can be claimed
the node claims it, which puts their reputation on the line
their reputation is related to the node who gave them the original reputation
where does reputation initially come from?
how do we link that nodes reputation to the original node?
to become a node with reputation, you need to do work
you stake an initial amount of the network token
which then entitles you to entry
thereafter you can build up your reputation
in uber, if you fuck up, then you are banned
in uber, you undergo other things to get your reputation
or entry into the group
we can maybe just forgo this, and instead require an initial staked deposit from every member
so everyone stakes some amount
and then the trust is generated
from there on out
entry can be gained by endorsement
reputation is gained from doing good work
and whenever there is a claim, the arbitration takes place according to the members of the network
if the votes show that the claim is valid, then that reputation is lost
what stops members from colluding?
the fact that reputation is weighted
there is no single figure that attains massive status
forking is part of the process
then how do they coordinate?
if we have a globally weighted interest
then maybe we could require that to join the system
nodes stake some token amount
somewhere incorporate an exponential function
ie. for a node to do work, they stake reputation
they can get more reputation by staking the native token
side effects -
the reputation of the node remains
the payment from work is not refunded
what if -
reputation cant be transferred
big whales own lots of reputation, get lots of work
smaller party wants to challenge whale-
the whale cannot vote
but the influence must be proportional to the value of the community
such that the whale is not ousted, due to a smaller minority
there needs to be disincentive to simply oust other members
communities need to reproduce the work, stake their reputation, and risk ruin
They are also different to DAO voting, because they can't be plutocratic in nature.
Reputation is about the node's value within the group's notion of value.
The value = subjective criteria
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
PRESTO cryptoeconomic framework for system analysis.