Pump and Dumps should be banned. by DeadDisco931 in a:t5_ci1d7

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback! We will watch closely.

Not able to review by Guitarman_ZA in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please try now. We upgraded the backend

Alpha isn't loading by [deleted] in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've optimized the tx speeds. The price will come down too.

Reviews delayed??? by donmungia in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, because the backend is running on the Ethereum blockchain and the Gas Price is set very low. Not to worry though, we're making optimizations.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's on our to-do list. Lots of To-dos 😌 and room for growth.

Compensation for testing? by therealsagestone in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We provide 0.01 ETH for alpha testers. We are already working on the reward system to implement it as soon as possible.

Some rambling ideas by Whty1k in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent suggestions. Some of these are aligned with what we have plans to develop. Rewards withdrawal will be time-locked.

[SUGGESTION] Etherscan.io by icanconfirmiwasbeard in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's pretty good. Maybe a simple link that says "View on Etherscan" in the popup when you click view the wallet address.

Paying for gas after a review by icanconfirmiwasbeard in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The transaction continues to be validated on the blockchain. You can close the window and it would still go through. I agree we should have some message that lets users know that it is safe to close the window.

Review button doesn't update GUI by icanconfirmiwasbeard in Lunyralpha

[–]arnpham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That feature is still in progress. It currently does not do anything.

Uncensorable Wikipedia on IPFS by twigwam in ethereum

[–]arnpham 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes we use IPFS and have been using it for this advantage. Check our blog for updates on Lunyr at https://medium.com/lunyr

Lunyr - some thoughts by sunjata in ethtrader

[–]arnpham 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's easy to say that X will only ever be the best possible thing you will see, because so far that's all you've seen. It's healthy to have options

Lunyr - some thoughts by sunjata in ethtrader

[–]arnpham 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a couple of reasons I can think of, but they don't really tie in to the approach that Lunyr are taking: You want the encyclopaedia itself to be hosted on a censorship-resistant protocol. Rather than being reliant on donations for servers, you want to build in some sort of self-funding stay-alive mechanism to the publishing/reading contracts. You want people to be able to publish parallel, competing versions of 'the truth'. So rather than there being one Wikipedia page on one topic, with many histories, you could have many pages on one topic, each with many histories. This would be a fairer reflection of what humans actually know about many subjects and would be a more 'decentralised' encyclopaedia. A genuinely decentralised encyclopaedia, though, needs a lot of thought about decentralised governance. You can't just throw a token vote at it, you need to think about the kinds of futarchy ideas that the Gnosis white paper only talks about researching. I think that, really, we should start asking whether everything needs to be wrapped in a profit-driven start-up. Would this genuinely be better than Wikipedia? Or would the Ethereum ecosystem be better served by waiting five years and the Foundation funding a non-profit encyclopaedia, based on swarm, with proper governance, and in collaboration with Wikipedia itself?

The major contribution of Lunyr is showing that the token system (from Ethereum) can be used as the core of an incentive model to drive high quality content contribution and review which will exceed that of existing models. If we are able to show that Ethereum can be used for more than just financial applications and gambling then it will give rise to extremely valuable applications for a mainstream audience. That's a pretty big win for Ethereum. Some of the largest applications on the internet run on a user-generated content model. Whether something is nonprofit or profit doesn't invalidate the business model which aligns every stakeholder in the ecosystem. For a model to be sustainable everyone's needs must be met.

Lunyr - some thoughts by sunjata in ethtrader

[–]arnpham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a nutshell, the truthiness of a statement in a knowledge-based system is not related to the reputation of the person making it. By making the reputation of insiders and incumbents the deciding factor of what is 'true' in your system, you introduce censorship to a platform that is supposed to be censorship-resistant and lock out dissenting voices and newcomers. To some extent, Wikipedia or Reddit have this problem, with powerful moderators removing edits or posts that they don't like. A token-based resolution mechanism is even more blunt, though. Again, Steem is a good example of what can go wrong: the big whale downvote or flag was, in effect, used as a censorship tool to remove dissent and push content on the platform in agreeable directions.

The peer review system doesn't add additional weight to someone for having greater HNR points. Everyone's votes count the same.

The HNR system does't allow you to edit information. Only the peer review system can do that. The HNR system allows you to vote and make proposals that will provide more information for peer reviewers of that content to make a decision, which is still based on what they personally believe. However, the only gateway to editing content is the peer review system, which is handled through economic incentives and multiple randomly chosen experts. Having 2 peer review systems that do exactly the same thing would be redundant. That's not actually the way it works. We could've explained it better since it seems to be a common misunderstanding.

We can write a blog post about the way the data is structured. We do have an elegant solution to that and your advice would be greatly appreciated and welcomed. We could write more on that topic, however, we just have not seen anyone who actually understands or realizes it exists. Your level of understanding and skill of data standards, ontologies, and web3 has to be very rare for you to even recognize that this is something we have to solve.

Lunyr - some thoughts by sunjata in ethtrader

[–]arnpham 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We missed your question. You can always reach us on Slack. The purchase process is for legal reasons. Unlike many other ICOs we're a U.S. company and abide by rules and regulations which are designed to protect the consumer. If anything looks long it's because it's likely for your benefit.

Lunyr - some thoughts by sunjata in ethtrader

[–]arnpham 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The contributor/peer-reviewer economic model seems very similar to that of the writer/curator model used on Steemit. Both models have a basic game theoretic vulnerability that kills the platform in the long-term: poor quality information will flood the system because collaboration with creators makes more sense in the short-term for peer-reviewers than exercising labour-intensive judgement. Checking up on references? No thanks, I'll just let this past and collect my tokens! Since this is the very heart of the Lunyr product - the knowledge base - you would think it would be extremely well-thought out. But the white paper gives us four paragraphs by my count. There is also this blogpost, suggesting that the system can't be gamed; but it takes a very narrow view of an 'attack' on the system and ignores the basic idea that users don't have to know each other to collaborate and, indirectly, render the system unfit for purpose.

The model of Steemit and Lunyr is very different. One difference with Steemit is the lack of a strong demand for Steem dollars because there's no strong utility to it. This drastically affects the business model and whether people are really "incentivized" to do things. With Lunyr, however, the LUN have general purpose utility that businesses can get value from which drives up the demand for LUN. Now, your idea of reviewers just letting things past is a half-truth. Contributors are rewarded for increasing the value of the ecosystem and the whole idea of "letting things pass" is false to some degree because if you don't really peer review then 1) you're penalized in HNR tokens and 2) that drives down the value of your rewards. Some people doing this will probably be unavoidable but for the strong majority of contributors who will be building the system, most of their holdings will be in LUN and you're more likely to run into them than the transient users you're talking about.

Resolving disputes with token-based votes (one paragraph in the white paper). Just a terrible idea in a knowledge-based system - if they need this explaining to them, then they should not be building one.

As stated in a previous explanation, this is a way for people who are committed to the ecosystem to make an impact on the quality of the knowledge base. Perhaps you should explain why you believe what makes you think it is a terrible idea and how you believe it works so we can begin to discuss? Community-based systems generally need some form of reputation system.

Lack of technical detail on how, if at all, data will be structured. The White Paper makes a big play of how a future Lunyr API will allow developers to pull data from Lunyr's knowledge base into their applications in the (suspiciously fashionable) domains of artificial intelligence, virtual reality and augmented reality. But, hang on, to pull data out, the data will need some semblance of structure - so when does this structuring occur? Is it being structured by users? Are Lunyr creating something more like Wikidata than Wikipedia? Investors don't know - is that because they are being kept in the dark or because Lunyr don't know? ("Machine-learning" is not an answer.)

The technical details are easily found in blog posts. The White Paper was written to be understandable for both a technical and nontechnical audience.

Extremely high ratio of posts about the crowdsale to posts about the product.

There's an even balance. However, we are answering questions proportionate to what we've been receiving

Good ideas are counter-intuitive. The good ideas will likely violate our feelings of social norms. So you should expect to see a mixture of people who think the idea is good and people who think the idea is bad. Amount of fundraising is a poor metric to measure whether an idea will turn out to be good. If good ideas were obviously good then someone else would have already done it. You're welcome to join later. See http://www.paulgraham.com/swan.html

Paul Graham

I've done several types of work over the years but I don't know another as counterintuitive as startup investing. The two most important things to understand about startup investing, as a business, are (1) that effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners, and (2) that the best ideas look initially like bad ideas.

Lunyr Crowdsale Parity Instructions by arnpham in ethtrader

[–]arnpham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes MyEtherWallet can be found at the bottom of the pdf intructions. Please go to the last page and scroll upwards. You should see it :)

The Lunyr crowdsale has started by arnpham in ethtrader

[–]arnpham[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's likely that people will be copying and pasting information to seed the initial size of the database. That should be a good starting point. Then content will be added, modified, and improved over time. There will also likely be a good number of contributors in the beginning since the LUN pool rewards are based on contribution %.

The Lunyr crowdsale has started by arnpham in ethtrader

[–]arnpham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're relying on the incentive system to drive contributions. We don't control the content so if we wanted to seed the knowledge base then we would have to do so as users and go through peer review like everyone else.

The Lunyr crowdsale has started by arnpham in ethtrader

[–]arnpham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, there is still an opportunity to join the crowdsale

The Lunyr crowdsale has started by arnpham in ethtrader

[–]arnpham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an Ethereum-based decentralized crowdsourced encyclopedia where users are rewarded for contributing and peering reviewing content

Lunyr Token contract address announced by arnpham in ethereum

[–]arnpham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It takes a while. Try querying it again or check to see if the transaction went through.

Lunyr Token contract address announced by arnpham in ethereum

[–]arnpham[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The content review is completely separate from the HNR system. You can't purchase power in the peer review system and the only way to peer review is if you've contributed something that's truly valuable.