The value starts at 1. The first person to view pays 1 DC to see it. If the viewer up-votes the dream, the value goes to 2. If the viewer downvotes it, it goes to 0. The value increments by 1 for every up-vote, and the lowest value is 0. Too many down-votes at 0, and the dream is forgotten (deleted). It only costs DC to view. Voting doesn't cost any DC.
The poster cannot request a certain value. All dreams start at 1.
Hi Brad. After letting users post for free during beta testing, we decided to charge one DreamCoin per submission to filter out spam and hopefully to improve the quality of the content.
After you join, you may view dreams that have a value of zero for free. You also start with one DreamCoin, so you can submit one dream for free essentially. If people like it, you'll accumulate coins that can be used to view other entries. DreamCoins are also given to users as a gift at random times, so that's another way to do it.
I have an example in the tutorial. As I say in my recent comment, maybe I should have the tutorial / help section pop up automatically when people visit the site?
Yes, to view a dream, users pay the price shown on the left. I thought I explained how the site works well enough in the "How This Works" section, but it seems like that approach isn't working. Do you have any suggestions on how I could better explain this to people? Might it be a good idea to have the "How This Works" section pop up automatically when people visit the site?
Is the interface confusing to you? If so, what would make it more intuitive?
I'm willing to pay anyone (in DreamCoins) who helps to develop an effective explanation. You can cash out DreamCoins, so there's real value if you want to help me out.
Hi, yes you have to create an account to view. I've accepted that I will lose many potential users by choosing to avoid the typical VC-funded, unethical approach to the internet. I don't have any advertising, tracking, or selling of user data. The way I pay for the site is by having people purchase DreamCoins. Hopefully, I can attract people who respect this approach and are thankful to not have their information tracked and sold, although I'm not sure many people care about that.
Hi, please elaborate on what you don't understand. Is the layout confusing for you? Were you able to find the "How This Works" page; and if so, do you have a recommendation on making it more clear? Thanks
Last year, I announced an app called Dude, I Got It! for anonymously sharing ideas and getting paid for them. The app has been rebranded into DreamCoin.
It's still a work in progress with an experimental design, so if you have any suggestions, I'll send you some DreamCoins for helping me out. If you're interested in joining the team, please let me know. Can't offer any full time positions at the moment.
I've received some feedback from people saying they had a hard time figuring out how to create an idea. It seems straightforward to me, but then again, I'm the one who designed it.
There is no clear value to you, just like there is no value to you that a criminal could break into your window and watch you sleeping at night. For your security and privacy, you'd be better off having no windows.
That an unintended person can read your private messages is an unfortunate consequence of compromise. What we'd have to do is figure out a way to implement a security system that detects all intruders via cyber-forensics or whatever other effective means.
I see the consequences of unrestricted encryption as more severe than the consequences of restricted encryption.
In the article, I explain two options in the Apple case:
1. Apple could develop new software and give the FBI the key. That is the true back door.
2. Apple could disable the guess limit and let the government brute-force the code. This is the "lesser" back door.
In most encryption cases around the world, the government can get in with enough computing power. They can brute-force as they see fit, which is a problem for all people who support encryption. These people essentially are in favor of a method of privacy protection that works only as well as the math used to support it. In this case, the math is only so dependable.
The other option is to depend on due process, checks and balances, and the branches of power. Government cracking encryption is inevitable, so sticking to absolute encryption and refusing compromise is a losing battle in the long run. We might as well start today on working out a compromise, developing and implementing a federal system that appropriately handles the privacy of our communications.
I agree that Amnesty International is being extremely cautious in making recommendations, but if they felt that no compromises could / should be made, I don't see why they would bother with the quoted paragraph.
"any restrictions on encryption must be contained in laws that are precise and transparent"
^ This suggests that they think restrictions are possible, whereas many pro-encryption people think that restrictions are mathematically impossible and are stupid to even suggest.
"must be used only when necessary to achieve a legitimate aim"
^ Again, while there is no specific recommendation, they are implicitly suggesting that restrictions are acceptable under certain conditions.
"any measure interfering with encryption must be proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim for which it is imposed, and the benefits gained through the adoption of such measure must not be outweighed by the harm caused, including to individuals and network infrastructure and security."
^ Same thing. In three separate places, they suggest that restrictions are permissible, and they are making recommendations for when they may be permissible.
"any restrictions on encryption must be contained in laws that are precise and transparent, must be used only when necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and must not discriminate against specific individuals or groups. Critically, any measure interfering with encryption must be proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim for which it is imposed, and the benefits gained through the adoption of such measure must not be outweighed by the harm caused, including to individuals and network infrastructure and security."
I agree that the answer is complicated, but I don't agree that we must appeal to mathematics to solve the problem. We need to have a discussion about what is a good compromise and how much security and privacy we have to sacrifice in order to ultimately strengthen them. We sacrifice some of our privacy and security by allowing government to break into our homes, yet we feel safer and more private because law enforcement and our justice system is on our side and works to thwart criminals. It isn't perfect, but I personally would feel less comfortable if our homes were impenetrable - think of the ramsomware cases with encryption. The fact that there's no way to unlock those encrypted machines without the key is a tragedy. You might say the answer is to stop the ramsomware nuts instead of undermining encryption, but that's like saying we should stop the pedophile from raping our kid in his impenetrable basement instead of making it so we can break in.
How do we solve this? It's hard to say, but there are solutions. foolshdropout's first Guardian link presents a good example with the TSA luggage lock standardization. That is essentially a backdoor and has led to many thefts. The flaw in that example, however, is that with enough force, a lock can be broken, and any luggage can be penetrated, making the need for master keys and standardized locks unnecessary. So, it's not a good analogy with encryption, which cannot realistically be broken into.
Giving the government master keys to standardized encryption methods is not a good way to do it. However, the FBI's method of getting Apple to disable the guess limit is a "lesser" backdoor, if you must call it that. That provides some compromise because it requires the government going to Apple for each warrant and having them on a case-by-case basis disable the limit. This adds a few hurdles to slow down the process, which is basically what encryption does in the first place, while allowing authorities to lawfully search and seize.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know that if we stick to absolutes (total encryption, no encryption), we are only hurting ourselves.
My experience living in the United States and researching other countries has given me that perspective.
> Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them.
So, you do disagree with Amnesty International's recommendations for restricted encryption. That's fine, but I hope you also disagree with the government being allowed to enter our homes with a warrant.
Thanks for the links, foolshdropout. I've read most of those, and they tend to the make the same points over again.
I called it a "side door" to make the point that we need a compromise between the front and back. The pro-encryption crowd doesn't want a back door, and the anti-encryption crowd doesn't want a front door. As Amnesty International recommends, we need some compromise.
Given that you think I'm clueless on many fundamental levels, I presume you disagree with Amnesty International.