I don't share all of your complaints about this forum, but there is certainly no harm in competition and innovation. I have been thinking myself about ideas for an improved, more decentralized type of forum for a while.
To add to the recent serious complaints, he just said that Garr255 (who shill bid his own auction) didn't do anything wrong (disclaimer: Garr255 is a friend of Theymos and is trusted with 250 BTC of your donated funds). There is just no more incentive for Theymos to have integrity and it is blatantly obvious.
How are you going to avoid anything but OP moderation? Or am I reading that wrong? Certainly blatantly illegal things will have to be removed.
The poster below is correct. The server can't see what the user doesn't allow someone to see by inviting them into the feed. It needs to be tested and tried, but ask yourself the same question about the bitcoin blockchain. If there were something "illegal" there, how would it be "removed"? It doesn't need to, just ignored, which is the default action. When it comes to data and encryption, when no one can see it, it effectively doesn't exist. Since the server would hold no encrypted keys, complying with any and all demands of local law enforcement (hint: not a US hosted site) would still not help them do anything about the content.
I haven't had time to read much more than your OP yet, but I didn't read anything about a tipping system there, that's certainly something it needs.
You're absolutely right and I totally forgot to add it. I wrote this last night at something like 6am so there will be plenty of time to refine thoughts and add features. I think despite the initial concern that "no one will use tipping" (which I share in concern), there is no reason not to allow bitcoinQT (or another method) to be linked through API to tips and such. Blockchain.info does it with a browser plugin. Anything is possible.
Also, have you detailed the ownership and director structures?
Since moderation would effectively be impossible programmatically except for users the thread OP assigns moderation trust to, the only "censorship" vector is at the domain level. I *need* suggestions on how to make that a distributed control effort, because I don't think I should even hold that domain once things get going but I'm unaware of any registrars that would allow me to demand a split key system of control.
I have had the idea rolling around of a totally community owned and operated forum (and company), where everyone has voting privileges and shares, that increase or decrease based on factors focused around what you have contributed, your reputation, tips, karma-type ratings, etc. Perhaps create a block-chain (ideally that can be mined along-side Bitcoin like Namecoin) to record everything permanently, or to just have a permanent record of some things, and give some credit for those who run nodes. Everything is decided using this weighted-vote system, from things like forum moderation and escrow conflicts, to making all of the every-day business decisions like hiring employees and electing directors (if needed at all, community would decide). Founders would have no advantage over anyone else.
The main problems with this forum come with time, just as with civilization itself. Corruption and hypocrisy have ruined it at the administrative level. By allowing *any* users to be more powerful of influential, there system will become agenda-ridden like must of the current community is. Instead, I propose that all users are equal in the only power that matters-- self governance. If you choose to trust someone elses broadcast, then you are agreeing to listen to their ramblings (reverse ignore). If you choose to trust someone for transactions, you are choosing to increase their reputation based on your reputation. Nothing gets shoved in without notice by a moderator who invested into someone. No one gets secretly "whitelisted". It will no longer be profitable to make repeated sockpuppets as everyone will know exactly who made them by who is trusted them so much. This will also reduce scams. Some could argue that "moderation is necessary" at a site-wide level, but I content that site-wide moderation is the site's biggest weakness as it allows a trust-attack vector similar to having dishonest police. You can't fight them, but they make you feel like you need them so you're forced to trust them. I say do away with them altogether.
Basically operating everything on the principle that if one person looks at a big jar of jelly beans and tries to guess how many there are, they won't get anywhere close, but if a million people guess the average will be exact. I suppose it would be run like a fairly typically anarchist-type system. I suppose the big questions that would make or break this are if a corporation really needs a CEO, and if a community can actually self-regulate.
That's the test, isn't it? We need to prove it once it's up and running. I have faith this community is diverse enough to make it work. I have no faith that moderation will help at all. I do not think the site needs a corporation to run it. Despite loving the concepts of a free market, I see this forum turning to garbage when profits control interests. I think instead, the community should decide with their trust who holds the keys. Initially it would be whomever the first involved decide (I have made no stake in requiring control in this project, only in being the leading passion until others are able to decipher the vision).
The forum could end up branching out in a million different ways, all consensus-based, as the community decides how to spend funds and all other resources. Either it could end up running the world, or blow up and fail in a week. I wish I had enough resources to develop something like this myself and just launch it on the world, but unfortunately most of my company's time has to be spent on things that actually make money for us, instead of costing us. If your project turns in to (or is already intended as) something resembling what I've been considering, I would put as much time and coin into it as possible.
3 years ago I started a project called smallpla.net that never actually got finished. It was a project based on a consensus community, Ripple style trust payment network, automatic language simplification engines for everyone to learn each others language easier, and a shared economy with dynamically created miniature governments geared at creating projects and collaborations. It was intended to be a collection of micro-democracies. I am sure some of those ideas will carry through, but at least for the first iteration I have no intention of complicating things much more than they are already.
If you support this project, PM me with your public email and I'll jott you down on the spreadsheet as a pledger of support. People need to see just how many others agree with this initiative because they are going to first be in denial ("We don't really need a new forum, this one isn't really broken" and other logical fallacies). and it will take them some time until they realize how they are being corralled like cattle here and deserve an open field.
