Shouldn't be too hard / an event with zapraising thing that was done a while back.
I guess the issue would be not curation but rather getting a page of 'nostr/bitcoin projects' and not anything else / filter out everything else (simple tagging wouldn't work with bad actors, I'd imagine, so aside from manually filtering things in a centralized sense, i'm not sure how else it can be done in an automated sense, unless that is actually the direction).
I believe this should be extremely opinionated with people using lists that they trust, and projects not being directly shown but verified by curators of the lists.
Of course there can be DNS/GitHub/etc verification.
The benefit here is you can choose who’s list.
Right. We can do it pretty "manually" for now, but good WoT systems will make this basically automatic soon.
got a suggestion for lists NIP here: https://github.com/PrettyGoodFreedomTech/nips/blob/decentralized-lists/93.md
WoT is an easily gameable system for bad actors, unfortunately.
List curators should verify authenticity; the only “automatic” verification should be verifiable truths like ownership of a DNS name or a GitHub repo with a verification code.
PageRank, yes, demonstrably. GrapeRank, not even close. Read this, if you haven't yet:
nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpef89h53f0fsza2ugwdc3e54nfpun5nxfqclpy79r6w8nxsk5yp0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uqqjemjv9cx2unpde4s59e86a
> PageRank suffers from several well known methods of attack, most notably the link farm.
> Unfortunately, there is no immediately obvious way to incorporate mutes, reports, or other arbitrary sources of data into the PageRank algorithm
> if you try to modify PageRank to design a centrality algorithm to address its shortcomings and to implement a certain set of desired characteristics, you'll eventually hit upon something more or less like GrapeRank
> - There needs to be a generalizable, clearly defined protocol to incorporate any source of data, not just follows, mutes and reports. For GrapeRank, that method is called intepretation.
> - There needs to be a clearly defined protocol to design different metrics with different meanings. One metric to identify health care workers, another metric to rate skill level in some particular activity, etc.
> The GrapeRank algorithm was designed specifically with these considerations in mind.
I am speaking from experience and not just one specific algorithm. Humans are very fallible, accounts can build up reputation cheaply and expend it, and nothing can really prevent this.
Well yea okay, agreed. No technical tool can counter active, skilled deception and deceit. The ceiling for how well digital tools can do, given human nature, is set outside the digital system - agreed. Some implementations get close to that ceiling, some are really far away.
But either way, this I led us on a big tangent here. We should come back to this another time when you're not in the middle of a loosely-organized resistance against our funding overlords
Ah, gotcha with the lists.
That 'central' curator is multiple people you follow who create them.
So I guess the page would be basically empty, until you follow 1+ people, where at least one has made a list of projects to fund.
(I guess you could have a few 'site selected lists' to make the page not totally empty, where a message would say to the user, "These are people that we trust to showcase projects they want to highlight to receive user-funding. You should follow people you trust and see their selections on this page."
It could also present you with "These projects have been on multiple lists" to help you narrow down what projects to fund.
This would result in, basically, a decentralized version of OpenSats from the looks of it.
