You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Thinking out loud: A possible path towards the "crab bucket" concept?
all of the participating moderation nodes send their downvotes (or upvotes) at the same time.
If the only votes that would really matter are from the big stakeholders, is this part even necessary?
an anonymous alternate account
I was trying to think if there was a way to avoid this element, but I'm not sure there is. But might it not be the case that there would be few enough genuine humans participating that a vengeance-minded person could just mass-retaliate against all of them even if they couldn't find the particular person who blew the whistle?
What remains is just ... support from enough larger stakeholders
Yes, the perennial problem.
Strictly speaking, I guess not, but I think there are three reasons why you'd want them to. (i.) skin in the game. The need to expend voting power and resource credits would impose some restraint on the signaling; (ii) the moderation node could track whether participants actually followed through with their votes and ignore signaling from accounts with unreliable follow-through; and (iii) ideally, at some time in the future, the program could have an influence without backing from a top-tier "sponsor". Also, if this were adapted to fund itself using upvotes, then the participants would need to vote to collect curation rewards.
Yeah, I don't see any way around it.
It might, but that just sends the rewards back to the rewards pool for redistribution, so I'm not sure how much damage a broad-based retaliation would actually do. OTOH, they could just randomly scapegoat individual accounts, one at a time, so I guess there would need to be some sort of mitigation plan for dealing with those contingencies.
Right. And the only tool that we have to address it is persuasion.
I haven't fully thought this through yet, but what about this: Instead of a pledge-message and mechanism to downvote-when-triggered the user instead composes and signs a downvote transaction but doesn't post it directly to the chain, instead they encrypt it with the memo key of a "crab bucket" account and post the encryption output as a comment on a "crab bucket" post (I'm assuming they have a tool to take care of the technical aspects, not doing it manually). If the crab bucket account detects it has enough downvote transactions for a particular target post it then decrypts them and posts those transactions to the chain.
Interesting thought. On one hand, it would be good because there would be no possibility of reneging after committing to vote. OTOH, I'm not sure how it would scale. I'm sure it would be fine at current usage levels, but there may be limits. It's definitely worth keeping this in mind if anyone ever takes steps towards implementation.