A 1-time fixed cost will not deter spam, it only encourages more spamming to lower the averaged per-spam cost. Email spamming requires some system set up, that's a 1-time fixed cost above $10/year but it does not stop spam.
It’s one time fixed cost per stream of messages, with some out of band mechanism to throttle posting per-stream. I’m not sure I agree with the original articles choice of throttling mechanism (binding to the universal Bitcoin clock), but the concept still makes sense: in order to scale up production of spam, you still need to buy additional domains, otherwise you’re limited to one post every n-minutes, and domain registration slow enough for block lists to keep up.
There was a psychological study that decided that community moderation tends to be self healing if, and only if, punishing others for a perceived infraction comes at a cost to the punisher.
I believe I have the timeline right that this study happened not too long before StackOverflow got the idea that getting upvoted gives you ten points and downvoting someone costs you two. As long as you’re saying something useful occasionally instead of disagreeing with everyone else, your karma continues to rise.
While interesting, this seems entirely tangential to the conversation to me. I’m not seeing the connection between paying for the right to participate and punishment. What am I missing?
If there’s no system to refute the uniqueness of a handful of identities (sock puppets used for griefing) then the system won’t scale. If anyone can issue a “takedown” for free, the system of moderation won’t scale.
Comments
If the data is a signed hash, why does it need the domain name requirement? One can host self-authenticating content in many places.
And one can host many signing keys at a single domain.
In the article, the main motivation for requiring a domain name, is to raise the barrier to entry above “free” to mitigate spamming/abuse.
A 1-time fixed cost will not deter spam, it only encourages more spamming to lower the averaged per-spam cost. Email spamming requires some system set up, that's a 1-time fixed cost above $10/year but it does not stop spam.
It’s one time fixed cost per stream of messages, with some out of band mechanism to throttle posting per-stream. I’m not sure I agree with the original articles choice of throttling mechanism (binding to the universal Bitcoin clock), but the concept still makes sense: in order to scale up production of spam, you still need to buy additional domains, otherwise you’re limited to one post every n-minutes, and domain registration slow enough for block lists to keep up.
One person per domain is essentially proof of $10.
There was a psychological study that decided that community moderation tends to be self healing if, and only if, punishing others for a perceived infraction comes at a cost to the punisher.
I believe I have the timeline right that this study happened not too long before StackOverflow got the idea that getting upvoted gives you ten points and downvoting someone costs you two. As long as you’re saying something useful occasionally instead of disagreeing with everyone else, your karma continues to rise.
While interesting, this seems entirely tangential to the conversation to me. I’m not seeing the connection between paying for the right to participate and punishment. What am I missing?
If there’s no system to refute the uniqueness of a handful of identities (sock puppets used for griefing) then the system won’t scale. If anyone can issue a “takedown” for free, the system of moderation won’t scale.