Thanks everyone for the invaluable feedback. Changing the font ASAP xD
18 karma · joined May 4, 2023
Or you could add to the database of reviews, either through reporting someone (provided you give evidence) or verifying that they delivered on their promises (same goes).
I thought it was cool at first. Like the nostalgia of retro tech. But I guess function over form.
Gonna look at reverting it now into something better.
We attach the reason for a flag as metadata on the NFT itself. So it is in metadata.json
Right now the frontend does not display this but we will be adding it soon.
ENS integration is days away. We have been working to get it out ASAP. It would be a great addition.
We try to mitigate that problem by having addresses be verified before they are allowed to review others.
Yes integration like that is the most valuable way this can be used. My dream is to be able to partner up with others to make things like that possible.
And yes it doesn't completely eliminate the problem, but it does mitigate it. And I'd be happy knowing I prevented at least one other person from suffering a scam like I have before.
Yes most definitely! It doesn't follow the bad user to a new address per say, but rather flags each consecutive address to which that user transfers funds.
Yes abuse is my biggest fear. Especially for example someone who tries to falsify their reputation.
The best way we can mitigate abuse right now is to enforce a strict verification process when on boarding users.
ultimately the best way is to also do everything we do in a transparent manner, so that anyone can weigh in on their opinions.
Noted. I'll update the favicon.
Yeah CRTFD temporarily redirects to the same page as VRFD as it is still under construction. It's intended to just be showing off the next feature, I'll fix sorry.
Users may only vote once, furthermore they must be verified to be able to vote.
Are your referring to the application forms or the web page font?
I'll change it to something else then
The footer is in Ubuntu font at least... :/
In the first, you would be reassured that the person has been verified by Open Info. And you would further be able to asses how many other verified users have seconded this. Giving you confidence to proceed with your sale.
Tn the second, you would immediately question the validity of the seller and you would be able to review the claims made against them and asses for yourself whether or not you whish to proceed.
It is crucial that people not be falsely targeted.
all reports are reviewed and factual evidence must be provided for it to be considered a succesful report. Thereafter, the evidence is displayed publicly for users to make their own assumptions from it.
Worst case scenario reports can still be revoked if new evidence comes to light.
But I am still optimistic that the blockchain itself carries invaluable utility in the way everything is openly verifiable. And for poor countries it offers a very much needed escape from failed currencies.
For that reason my goal is to rather cherry pick the real, i.e. credible and authentic, people who want to use the blockchain for transaction from this sea of scams.
Maybe my time is waste. But at least I'll learn more from it.
But I am just using the Binance test net to make sure it is working correctly before launching on the live net.
The Ethereum test nets are not as user friendly and hard to get gas for.
I want to migrate to Ethereum end of this month if I'm happy with the state of it.
Noted, then I should use EVM address for the time being thanks.
1. Yes excuse my noob skills. I am still learning a lot. That's partly why I made it open source, so that other can contribute if they wanted. I'm still trying to get the UI polished.
2. The top addressses are from mocked data right now. Right now the only live features are registration, reporting and searching. Viewing top addresses in each category is the next feature I am finishing. Sorry if that was not clear, I'll add a disclaimer.
3. I don't want to add comments as this starts becoming a duplicate of Etherscan then. I'd rather focus on simplicity for now. We have it so that only verified users may vote, to partially stop votes from being abused.
3. The contingency plan against what exactly? Since the data is attached to a token and the token given to the user, I'd argue that the users owns their own data. We as Open Info do currently regulate the data though. But only initially. Once an address's status is determined, it is up to the community votes to second Open Info's classification
Simply put, I would recommend someone build or defend their reputation on my platform as it can always be linked back to their Ethereum address. For people who use burner addresses, this tool would be useless. However, I personally would consider interacting with a burner address as a concern. I would prefer to interact with someone who has previous payment references to use as an indication of a successful delivery of goods.
Closest comparisons to my goal with this platform would be certik. What differentiates this however is that it is aimed towards an individual using an address as payment for some service or product.
5. Once again, excuse my frontend skills. I'm not sure I understand though? Would you care to elaborate please and I'll try and improve it.
My idea is not to replace this but rather amend this.
Specifically by tracking the transactions of these scammy address to also then report all subsequent ones, i.e. the ones they try to launder the money through.