Wow, that’s cool. A brilliant idea.
This is a micro payment driven echo system? So this could be compatible with the after-the-fact model where the end user selects how much they want to pay in micro payments if at all. It so it does seem like a good way to elevate quality.
Haven’t watched but this gels with thoughts I’ve had about how to create a self curating community.
I haven’t figured it out, it just kept getting very complex and hard to imagine a design. Maybe I’ll get back into it at some point so it will be interesting to look at their approach.
I’m thinking though, it might just be too hard to design decentralised ecosystems in the conventional way (not enough geniuses like David! ), so I wonder about an evolutionary approach (generic algorithms, or simulated annealing etc). I’d love to see something like that.
The first design question should be: is it even necessary?
Current examples of the free-and-open-software model such as package systems for various Linux flavors, might be centralized (but to many centers) but it doesn’t matter.
Trying to do everything “decentralized” is trying to use a hammer for everything.
Looking for solutions isn’t the problem, is forcing them inappropriately that is when we come unstuck. This - thinking - about novel applications of decentralisation - is a creative endeavour rather than an ideological straitjacket.
But you admit that your efforts at looking for a solution have not made progress. That may be because you’re looking for a solution to a non-problem.
No, I didn’t say they haven’t made progress. But you are correct that there may not be a fruitful outcome to my research. That is not IMO a reason not to look!
I.e., You have only made progress on discovering “what doesn’t work.”
Mr Edison, you have now made 999 failed light bulbs
Keep it up @happybeing you are in good company.
Ah, but Edison knew lighbulbs were possible, he just hadn’t yet found one that lasted long enough.
Edison knew that light bulbs were possible in the sense that the underlying process of incandescence worked. What he didn’t know was whether there was a material that could work as a filament in a way that would be commercially viable.
It seems to me that commercial viability is what you are really questioning here, so I think it’s quite an appropriate example.
Most of science is discovering what doesn’t work. That’s not a good reason to question the worth of this line of inquiry.
He knew they were possible because they existed but didn’t last very long. Commercial viability is not relevant to the question of whether @happybeing can find what he is looking for: a “self curating community” for apps.
Commercial viability is exactly what we are looking for. The ability to reproduce the self-curated effect at scale and with reasonable incentives. As opposed to self-curated communities springing up and then dying more or less at random.
You won’t stick to the point will you? Just trying to bury it in sophistry. Bye.
Your point, at least as objectively manifested in the thread, was that initial lack of success and the discovery that several potential hypotheticals did not pan out invalidates the whole line of inquiry. Pointing out that this is an invalid reason to reject a line of inquiry is quite relevant. The fact that you disagree with me does not make me off point.