9
[–] PMYB2 3 points (+3|-0)

Well that could be a problem long term.

[–] go1dfish 0 point (+0|-0)

There are competing interests involved.

Privacy, vs security. Without a central authority, any data that makes up voting needs to be public. So right off the bat if you want to limit votes to accounts you have to attribute votes to them and they lose voting privacy. With notabug's voting system you know that some CPU power went into every single vote but you don't know who made it. The idea is that the proof of work acts like a distributed rate limit very similar to how PoW was originally proposed to be used before bitcoin.

Even with central authority you can't really prevent alts and such from determined individuals.

[–] PMYB2 1 point (+1|-0)

You certainly have a point, I’d wager a guess at least without significant effort you could not limit votes while keeping it decentralized. I guess I see where you are coming from but I still see how easy it would be to exploit for someone who say hired a bot net for a few hours. You could virtually guarantee a front page post. I know you are smarter than me so I know you will come up with a great solution to that problem before long.

[–] AOU 1 point (+1|-0) Edited

@go1dfish is here too.

[–] go1dfish 0 point (+0|-0)

Yep, maybe proof of work is not a great solution idk; it's good enough to get going IMO and has served decently well so far.

Nobody seems to disagree with that post so while it might seem like a confirmation of what it's saying I think it's more a confirmation that people are concerned about that aspect of notabug.

Spammers get nuked, good content generally rises. People have temper tantrums and usually figure out that their best option is to focus on a single shitpost and making it rise; but that's not so hard to counter either.

Honestly it's worked way better than expected.

Someone set up a vote bot and it caused some performance issues but those aren't related to the proof of work at all, they are more issues with gun being worked out.