-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Help create Linnia IRIS (InfoRmation Integrity Score) score algorithm #33
Comments
Nice! |
Issue Status: 1. Open 2. Started 3. Submitted 4. Done This issue now has a funding of 0.7 ETH (419.71 USD @ $599.58/ETH) attached to it.
|
Only a 2 week window for this — closed already? |
16 days left |
I can see that for x = |
So I made a couple mistakes here. In the formulas above, instead of: IRIS(attestation_for_data_of_user_y) = { IRIS(user_x_appreciation_for_data_of_user_y), if no IRIS(other_users_appreciation_of_data_of_user_y) ; f(median(IRIS(other_users_appreciation_for_data_of_user_y)), IRIS(user_x_appreciation_for_data_of_user_y)), otherwise} should be: IRIS(attestation_for_data_of_user_y) = { IRIS(user_y_appreciation_for_data_of_user_y), if no IRIS(other_users_appreciation_of_data_of_user_y) ; The idea behind f(x, y) = (-2x + y + IRISmax) /3 is as it goes: Theoretically, the most valuable information, or person, or diamond, or whatever is that which considers themselves not of great importance, but others see great potential. The self-approximation is more important since the Real axis might not exist from the beginning. You are by no means incentivized neither to super grade your data, neither to ultra degrade it. But you are incentivized to be careful in making your decision, which may result in lower self-adjustment, yet higher other-adjustment. This is because your IRIS score is first given by your own measurement => you would like higher self-grade. You would also like higher self-grade since you will be graded faster by others who see a great IRIS next to your profile because they also get that same IRIS when there is no other attestation than theirs. |
"Theoretically" based on which theory? "the most valuable [...] is that which considers themselves not of great importance" - I don't quite see that. I could see why something of great importance might be obvious to the owner as such. "others see great potential" - or they might not... this is "wisdom of the crowd" VS "wisdom of experts". It's opinion - not something we can easily conclude or verify. Except if there's some obvious theory I'm not aware of.
I can see some game-theoretic argument here, which uses, though, mechanics that I don't right now see anywhere defined. More specifically:
I don't get those fine details of this method. When I put whatever I understand into code, this is what I see: You can find the code here and in the same directory there's the juypter notebook with the analysis. I used the original formula with the Overall any such approach seems to me to have an optimal vote for the owner of the data. E.g. it's always optimum for them to vote 7 or 8 (right now the optimal seems to be Assuming there's an optimum voting strategy for the owner (e.g. vote 8), the rest of the formula is just median. That's fine - but isn't immune to all real-life threats, e.g. lobbies that vote certain data-points and/or anti-vote other people or datapoints. What Linia seems to need is Google's page-rank. There are four problems though: a) Google's page-rank is too expensive to implement on blockchain On a) - yes - page-rank should be a native ethereum operation along with other ranking mechanism. They will get there one day... but not soon. Good book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Whos-1-Science-Rating-Ranking/dp/069116231X/ The cover looks silly but there's quite a bit of good mathematics in there, and it's very well written. |
Ok, I wrote some very stupid comments and then I deleted them. I think you may be right. |
@uivlis @satoshi101 Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. It is really awesome. Yes, it may be best to have a set of domain-specific of IRIS scores. It may be a useful exercise to pick a specific real-world use case and walk through how a domain-specific IRIS score would work. |
Implicitly we might see traces of a "marketplace" here. The idea that IRIS is the "fair price" i.e. a value that if someone pays, they can own that datapoint and then future cashflows will go to them sounds interesting. Effectively, every datapoint can be a non-fungible token with it's own track history of exchanges at different price-points. Far reached, but it could work. If one can't "steal" the gem and own future cashflows or future appreciation, then it doesn't matter if you show it or hide it. :) But if ownership of the data changes, then it's a whole different story. @godfreyhobbs - I think that you mentioned in the past, the idea of "IRIS score" providers that have different levels of trust or credibility? - Which is not that decentralized of course, but it might be realistic. Something like "credit rating agencies". Overall, this problem - for me - is way to complex for a bounty, let alone one with such broad and strict-looking requirements. I would be very surprised if a "final solution" was found here. |
Just to mention that the vision described by @satoshi101, derived from my aphorisms, of Linnia being a marketplace of data implies that there is no IRIS beforehand, but rather that "the marketplace" is the IRIS and decides it. |
Correct. It's quite challenging to setup a functional marketplace though. At first order, all you seem to need is an ASK and potentially a BID IRIS in Specifically in the case of Linnia, a data point might be leased to a user for single use. This has a price set by the owner. The owner has incentive to set a "fair" price compared to the alternatives so that people lease the datapoints. Otherwise competitors will be leased more often than others. If someone plans to lease a datapoint many times, or if they believe that the datapoint is valuable and likely the market will appreciate that, they will want to buy instead of lease it. For the first transaction, we expect that someone to lease a datapoint at least once before buying it. Otherwise they will trust the original owner and the quality of the data they provide. Someone might decide to buy the data without seeing them, but we expect most people to want to first see/use the data, before they decide to own them. Once someone owns a datapoint, they might decide to amend the current lease price. The owner is the receiver of Note that the original issuer of the data, loses control of those data, permanently, as soon as the first transfer of ownership happens. i.e. they can't reclaim or offline the data. There might be a provision to be able to offline the data if you buy them back (potentially at some other This is the basic fabric of a marketplace based on datapoints as non-fungible tokens (à la kryptokitties) + a liquid crypto-token It's quite challenging to setup a functional marketplace. |
Currently, with this and other bounties, we are trying not to start with a given solution but allow the Linnia Community the freedom to come up with new solutions that we have not already considered. @satoshi101 Thanks for your insights. Linnia will primarily be about empowering individuals so data will be That said, consortiums may form and act as proxies for a large number of users. Again, the concept of policy-based sharing premissions become critical (bounty Issue #35 ). Consortiums could be either of the following:
|
I don't understand exactly what the above means. I can understand an element of "don't sell" and there should be the right to Actually in the context of the whitepaper, I don't even see what's the requirement out of this bounty. There's also some contradictions, in the whitepaper:
i.e.
On the code, records have IRIS and users have provenance. |
@satoshi101 IRIS score. |
@uivlis Hello from Gitcoin Core - are you still working on this issue? Please submit a WIP PR or comment back within the next 3 days or you will be removed from this ticket and it will be returned to an ‘Open’ status. Please let us know if you have questions!
Funders only: Snooze warnings for 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | 10 days | 100 days |
@godfreyhobbs is this one good to pay out to anyone or should I cancel the bounty? |
@uivlis @satoshi101 @tcsiwula we have created an interface to clarify how IRIS fits into the linnia protocol. Here is the update with some tests: |
@satoshi101 You comment was very helpful: I have introduced the following mapping to the linniaRecords.sol.
The |
Context
Linnia is a core component of the future of the web; Web 3.0. Linnia is a new Ethereum Blockchain protocol that brings the power of decentralization to your lifetime data. The Linnia protocol provides the foundation for secure decentralized applications in multiple spheres including the sphere of electronic healthcare records.
What
We would like to incentivize you, as a member of the Gitcoin/Bounties family, to innovate and help create the Linnia IRIS score algorithm. The IRIS stands for InfoRmation Integrity Score. The Linnia IRIS score is a critical part of the linnia protocol. We will be awarding the submission for this task a .7 ETH bounty, assuming the below requirements are met.
The proposed Linnia IRIS score algorithm must be in the spirit of the following two Linnia papers;
In particular, the following section describes the IRIS score:
Note: Linnia is a WORK IN PROGRESS. The Linnia smart contracts are only a small subset of what is described in these papers.
Our Ideas
Requirements
game
the IRIS score algorithmThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: