The "adults" should implement a decentralized jury system.
ALGORAND implements a dispute resolution system where any transaction (post) can only be disputed (flagged) once, and when a transaction is disputed, 1000 random users are notified and if they fail to respond within a set time frame (say, 48 hours) their option is forfeit and it goes to another random user. A transaction can only be canceled (removed) if a 60% consensus is reached by the randomized jury. If there is no 60% consensus (even if it's a 599 to 401 split) then the transaction remains unaffected. There is no penalty for simply being disputed, there is no "held pending trial" status. There is a small incentive paid to jury members for their participation and there is an added bonus for voting with the majority if there is a 60% majority (and the votes are hidden from all participants until voting is completed).
My addition. For a jury to work all jury votes would need to be 1:1 for consensus. Stake Based power for a jury members vote would make the jury purely for show.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Check this out. I just downvoted myself. Now 1000 people have to come figure this shit out. And now that you're here, I was wondering if you'd be interested in my new line of merch? We just got the new shirts in this week, and check out this cap. Mugs too! Supplies are limited though. Get yours today!
THEY MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST "RECEPTIVE" CUSTOMERS
ALSO, THERE'S A FAIR CHANCE THAT 60% OF THEM WILL DETECT YOUR RUSE AND OBLITERATE YOUR POST.
I'm pointing out the most obvious flaw in design when it comes to that plan. That particular flaw would have this system you're describing become completely useless within the first day going live. Can you describe what this flaw is?
Let's imagine you find something you believe should be removed.
You click the "flag" button and type your "reason" into the form.
The account you've decided to "flag" can then add their "response" to your case for "flagging".
Then, the randomized jury is given a chance to read BOTH cases and review the actual post.
Then they vote.
If a 60% majority agrees that the post should be removed, then it is removed.
If 41% of the jury agrees that the post should stand, the post is unaffected.
Repeating what's already there, does not describe the flaw in design. I can already see where you're going with this, but can you find one thing wrong with how it's to be implemented? I gave you a good example to draw conclusions from.
I added a form.
Your "publicity stunt" will be more difficult to get away with if you are unable to articulate your case to the jury.
What happens if one individual triggers this system to commence proceedings 1000 times within 10 seconds?
DECENTRALIZED JURY - FIELD TEST
[SKIP TO 782 SECONDS]
[SKIP TO 782 SECONDS]
What about it?
you seemed to suggest a decentralized jury would never work "irl"
this is a humorous example or a real world field test and proof of concept
I said that example you're providing wouldn't work here in this scenario. Offered several flaws with it and could keep going. The main flaw though is the fact it can be used/exploited easily by anyone who wants attention to their product with the simple push of a button. Since it's voluntary and will be used to cry wolf, most will ignore, and the entire system breaks itself probably within the first day of going live. There's no point in even talking about this again. I debunked that system already when applied to what we do here.
You're not even working out the odds or doing any thinking beyond what your device is feeding you. Do you know how long it would take to process ONE flag by choosing 1000 accounts at random? That could take years.