Hard to think what it would be like if it got traction, though; you don't have a reliable way of telling if a single user has voted multiple times - so anyone with enough bitcoins could buy the front page, right?
To keep advertisements/spam away, users would have to be willing to outspend spammers - is that really going to work?
Surely, at that point, its just an advertising space, like a billboard, rather than a news site?
Another point is that, as posters get 80% of the bitcoins spent on their post, the poster (lets say they are a spammer) has more than a 5 to 1 natural advantage over legit users - because they get 80% of what they spend upvoting themselves.
Its interesting, but have you thought about these issues?
There is a decay effect on the home page (the "hot" section) where posts will fall off as they get older.
The current calculation is bitcoins/sqrt(time)
The spammer is still just a single person, and if no one is sending coins to lets say his "viagra" post, then even if he has an advantage, it only takes a few people to like something else to outgun him. How many people vote up something on the home page of reddit. If they all put in for that, it would be very uneconomical to compete with.
Keep in mind, I don't really have a huge amount of faith that the system will work out. It is an experiment in micro-transactions and psychology.
Have you considered letting users also spend bitcoins to downvote posts, but at a high ratio (e.g. remove 10 by spending 1)? That could clear up the advertising.
What to do with the leftover bitcoins? Maybe hold on to them.
You would have to tie the spending to an existing account with a reputation system. The effect of your vote could be the product of your spend and reputation. Also an upper limit the power from donation. I voting with currency alone seems doomed
Comments
Interesting.
Hard to think what it would be like if it got traction, though; you don't have a reliable way of telling if a single user has voted multiple times - so anyone with enough bitcoins could buy the front page, right?
To keep advertisements/spam away, users would have to be willing to outspend spammers - is that really going to work? Surely, at that point, its just an advertising space, like a billboard, rather than a news site?
Another point is that, as posters get 80% of the bitcoins spent on their post, the poster (lets say they are a spammer) has more than a 5 to 1 natural advantage over legit users - because they get 80% of what they spend upvoting themselves.
Its interesting, but have you thought about these issues?
There is a decay effect on the home page (the "hot" section) where posts will fall off as they get older.
The current calculation is bitcoins/sqrt(time)
The spammer is still just a single person, and if no one is sending coins to lets say his "viagra" post, then even if he has an advantage, it only takes a few people to like something else to outgun him. How many people vote up something on the home page of reddit. If they all put in for that, it would be very uneconomical to compete with.
Keep in mind, I don't really have a huge amount of faith that the system will work out. It is an experiment in micro-transactions and psychology.
Time will be the best judge.
Have you considered letting users also spend bitcoins to downvote posts, but at a high ratio (e.g. remove 10 by spending 1)? That could clear up the advertising.
What to do with the leftover bitcoins? Maybe hold on to them.
I had code in there to do just that (at a 2x ratio) but commented it out before launch.
I am going optimism that it will not just turn into an ad site. If I end up wrong, then I will do something like this.
So far it seems to be a site where people that love dinosaurs come. Go figure.
You would have to tie the spending to an existing account with a reputation system. The effect of your vote could be the product of your spend and reputation. Also an upper limit the power from donation. I voting with currency alone seems doomed