I don't know what you do, so I can't comment on how much consensus is required between you and others to do it. But I can say with certainty that much of the services you rely on (to do the things you

I didn't reply to your first post, as I don't really like to publicly disclose many details of our infrastructure. But a very basic answer is that we use a combination of leased and owned equipment. Generally

It seems you're simultaneously arguing that a trust network is both an echo chamber AND a universal scoring system (ala Chinese social scoring). Those two terms describe radically different approaches

It's predictable that some people would freak out, I think. I suspect that the more someone's brand is that of an "out of the box" thinker (regardless of the reality of that assessment), the

Can it be seen as some sort of reputation/opinion system? Yes, it is in essence a means for creating a personalized form of that.

I've tried to make clear already how completely different this is from social scoring systems. I'm not sure what else I can say on that subject. But as to consensus, I will argue that some level of consensus

If I understand you correctly, you're assuming that a trust network is only useful for rating things that have an absolute (but potentially unknown) truth. And you're concerned that this system would then

I'm guessing the plan is to evolve this into some sort of a web service. The basis of it wouldn't be a web service, but a peer-to-peer network for exchanging information and associated opinions about that

I'll never just judge content based on its rating. I'll argue that you do this all the time. For most people, they value the diagnosis they get from a doctor more than the diagnosis they get from their

A trust network can certainly be an echo chamber. Many people today foolishly design their trust networks as an echo chamber because they prefer to avoid information that contradicts what they believe

Truth isn't subjective. People's opinion of it is, but those are actually quite distinct statements. From a "rights perspective" of morality, people certainly have the right to their opinions,

Oh, based on your final concern, it's also worth noting that any potential integration of a trust network into Hive would almost certainly be as a 2nd layer application, so it's usage would be strictly

It's great when people "do their own research", but it's important to recognize the limitations of that approach. In my first post, I essentially argue that no one does their own research on

Truth itself isn't subjective, but our methods of rating truth are mostly subjective. But computers can help us with subjective computations. For example, finding a "good" article on the web

Yes, the problem was a misunderstanding by one of the devs implementing the blacklist spec. It's actually a complicated problem involving one dev who originally worked closely with me to design the spec

There's a known bug in hivemind that causes this and I raised the issue with our devs last week. Your follow list isn't really lost, it's just hivemind is interpreting the data improperly right now. I

It's not setup that way now, because we use it to check the health of our own hiveminds, and we keep them at least functionally similar at all times (although we run different codes on them simultaneously

Hive can be sharded if necessary, it's a generalized database technique. It's not now, mainly because it's not needed at this point.

Servers need to be cheap if you want resistance against infrastructure attacks by large infrastructure providers.

but to HAProxy they would return a heathy status and would continue to serve traffic. No, that's not necessarily true, and it's not true the way we use it. Haproxy allows you to define your health check.