World177

I’ve done it in different communities. I don’t think it should be discouraged even though it can seem strange. There’s a person who wants their question answered, and someone who wants to answer it. Why make the sever worse by stopping it?

At times, they might be wrong, but they’re going to realize they’re a problem if they’re always wrong. I do think sometimes incentives seem misaligned, like, I was in an enterprise linux related community, where their income is related to providing support to enterprise customers. In that scenario, it seemed like someone answering questions for free could be problematic to their business.

I don’t know, I don’t think it’s an issue, but I’ve noticed it does seem strange being that person.

I think you are correct. It seems like all of the other prices align with the weekly rate as 5 days. It also makes the daily rate seem more reasonable, at a yearly rate of $240,000. In a better interpretation of this, I could have maybe also assumed that this is just a fun way of stating something like "hiring to work on doubling users costs this much, but there isn't actually a guarantee that the userbase will be doubled."

> Estimates

> 3m $60k double your daily active users

Endorsements. (specifically to edits they approve)

While this prototype did not consider much, most applications on Ethereum do provide high levels of interoperability. An organization (or DAO) could write their own implementation for how their domain uses the endorse function on a contract, then have their members endorse information, which results in the organization endorsement (ex. endorsed by who.int) showing up when requirements are met, etc. A high profile person, like Elon Musk, could also sign stuff to have his signature show up on a reference. (ex. ElonMusk.eth endorses this reference as accurately representing the truth)

I think with this specific use case, the purpose is not as clear because endorsements on social media are already trusted by users. For users, even if this was correctly decentralized through a blockchain domain, it still would likely require developer interpretation for them to understand if the decentralized service is operating as expected.

> No it doesn't.

I wasn't really paying attention to the implementation, but just what is easily possible. It would be simple to sign the full edit and provide that to other people without ever storing it on chain. It's also possible to create a contract that serves for domains of an organization to sign messages, etc.

> This whole thing is seriously stupid. It is a non-solution to a non-problem. The problem they are trying to solve doesn't exist and even if it did this wouldn't fix it.

I think this a valid. I actually do think blockchains solve identity well through domains, though, with endorsements, there's already seemingly good trust to the accuracy of identity on social media platforms. As an example, there's not usually a question to whether Elon Musk was the person who made a Tweet endorsing something as true.

> I mean hell, at the very least you think they would sign a hash of the edit instead of just an id number.

With most blockchain based stuff, it seems like projects are frequently made without much consideration.

> Why is this better than just signing it with any private key and sharing the public key?

People using Ethereum often also use blockchain based domains which makes it easier for non-technical people to be more certain about endorsements. Ethereum leaves the implementation of how something becomes endorsed by a domain up to the owner(s) of a domain.

> Why do you need to involve a blockchain and I assume transaction fees as well?

This is more dependent on implementation. Just endorsing something does not need to be on chain, so there does not need to be fees.

> What's the point of some random person "endorsing" an edit?

I think you're right in that it's so far not been necessary to use blockchain based identities. Though, I think blockchain based identities are objectively better. In implementation, it doesn't have to be a random person, it could be anyone or any organization that could endorse changes.

> I'm not sure how a wholly external PKI could be any help in "endorsing" edits. A user's ETH wallet has no relation to their reputation or trustworthiness on WMF sites.

Ethereum based identities are easy to remember and harder to censor. If Wikipedia wants to censor someone currently, they can just remove the system they have implemented. The solution offered provides an external system that provides a way to determine if someone did something even if Wikipedia tries to hide it later. (with the certainty that also backs billions of dollars in value on Ethereum)

The chain of trust seems better with blockchain based domains than chain of trust often used with GPG. With blockchain based domains, they're secured by the same chain that has so far successfully secured billions of dollars. In the old system, at the top of the chain, the person trusting keys had to be confident that the keys at the top were correct, where in my opinion, it's harder to mistake having an incorrect version of Ethereum's chain.

The old system also provided a way for domains to be seized, which would be the equivalent of an identity being revoked. This can't happen with blockchain based identities, so it provides more certainty. Blockchain based domains are tie human rememberable names to identities well. Which while GPG is associated with email addresses, the association seems more difficult to fake, and provides non-technical people certainty of identity in a similar way to how they would normally trust a website.

Ethereum is a blockchain of computations. The fact that it also secures billions of dollars is evidence that the records, such as domains that represent an identity, are highly secure. In the same way that someone can't change who owns a balance, they also are not able to change who owns a blockchain based domain.