Content is inherently POW-backed. If it's actually good, do you think they used a random generator to produce it?
Boost is fundamentally a voting mechanism. But it is a voting mechanism that doesn't reward the content creator, so is it a good one?
Post by twetch#1784
You are correct. What I meant to say was:
An objective measure of energy (such as Bitcoin Difficulty) in POW-backed content is our only hope for better honest online and social media.
What the chain says
- Block
- 633 485
- Time
- 2020-05-04T23:44:48Z
- Signer
- 14QXphEYn97GKtCkjChvfmastRBPsBwJdx
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#1784
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
14QXphEYn97GKtCkjChvfmastRBPsBwJdx VerifiedReplies (15)
Boost is backed by capital, not Proof of Work. It doesn't matter that PoW is involved in the system because it's not an input to the system.
Everything a person can do is backed by their capital.
Capital means "investment or asset or contribution".
For example, eating a mango is backed by the person's primary direct property called their "body". This is capital, too.
I guess the key thing to analyze is the effect of capital as an input to the system. Systems are complex things.
The question arises of who is the "they" or "self" to which the capital is ascribed? This question is at the heart of contemplative practice. The Self is not the body since you don't become less self if limbs are lost. It's also not simply semantics.
In this case you responded to the fruits of my labor and capital by replying to me. So you did not have a problem assigning it to "my self".
Do you have an example where you have a difficulty assigning (capital) causes and effects?