Blockchain Fintech – Brandon Z. Frank, Joseph A. Latone, International Business Machines Corp
Abstract for “Incentive-based crowdvoting using blockchain”
“An instant operation can include creating a smart agreement identifying content and reviewing requirements for performing a review, validating and signing the smart contract, storing it in a blockchain and receiving feedback from content reviewers. The blockchain can then be amended to include the content review feedback.
Background for “Incentive-based crowdvoting using blockchain”
A blockchain can be used to perform various financial transactions because it is a shared ledger system. Crowdsourcing is used to achieve certain goals. Website owners and operators want their users to be engaged on the site as long as possible. The more time a user spends on the site, the more revenue they can make (for example, through sales or advertising). Review or curation may be used to rank web contents, placing the most popular content at the top in a site’s datafeed. This reduces bounce rates and engages the user. Traditional methods for reviewing and voting are not suitable for live content outlets such as news or live stream video. Conventional approaches lack spontaneity, and are limited by the availability of dedicated people who are constantly and efficiently reviewing. Although curating content can be described as simply ranking the content (which might suffice if it is already seen by a large audience who has access to real-time content), ranking content based on views or a “like”? A lack of distribution would make it difficult to measure quality. The website owner or operator cannot perform curation/review effectively since they cannot represent all the opinions of consumers or the entire user base without bias. Voting on content can be automated, may not occur in real-time and may not consider how much content was actually consumed.
One example of operation is to create a smart agreement, identify content and review requirements, sign and validate the smart deal, store the smart contract on blockchain, receive content review feedback from one reviewer of the content, then amend the blockchain to include that feedback.
“Another example embodiment could include a processor that can perform one or more of: create a smart agreement that identifies content and review criteria to perform a review, sign and validate that smart contract, store smart contract in a Blockchain, and a receiver that is configured to receive feedback on content from one or more reviewers. The processor may also be configured to amend the Blockchain to include the content review feedback.
“Another example embodiment could include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed, cause a processor perform one or more of the following: creating a smart agreement, identifying content and reviewing requirements for performing a content review, signing and validating smart contract, storing smart contract on blockchain, receiving feedback from one reviewer of the content, amending the blockchain to reflect the content review feedback.
It will be apparent that the components of the instant invention, as shown in the figures, can be placed in many different ways. The following description of the embodiments, including at least one, of a method and apparatus, non-transitory computing readable medium, and system, as illustrated in the attached figures is not intended limit the scope or claim, but it is representative of select embodiments.
“The instant features and structures or characteristics described in this specification can be combined in any way that suits the purposes of one or more embodiments. The usage of phrases like “example embodiments”, “some embodiments”, or similar language throughout this specification indicates that an embodiment could include a specific feature, structure, or characteristic related to the embodiment. The phrases “example embodiments”, “in some embodiments?”, “in other embodiments?”, or any other similar language throughout this specification don’t necessarily refer to the same group. Furthermore, the features, structures, and characteristics described in this specification may be combined in any way that suits the needs of one or more embodiments.
Crowdsourcing is related to Crowdvoting. It aims to involve communities through the promotion of collaboration and organization through the ranking digital content. The accepted rule of?1 to10:89? The rule states that 100 people can publish original content and 10 will vote for it. 89 people will consume it passively. In one embodiment, the instant application uses a Blockchain to crowdsource and, more specifically, to submit smart contract to a Blockchain to allow reviewers to access and review content in order to provide crowd-based feedback or “crowdvoting”. For various purposes.”
“FIG. 1. illustrates a Blockchain logic diagram for storing smart contracts on a blockchain. This can be used to review them (for example, by peer review). Referring to FIG. Referring to FIG. 1, the logic block diagram 100 shows various components that can be found in one or more devices, including a processor as well as memory. The content source 110 is the identifier of content 112 that will be reviewed or?crowdvoted. Reviewers 132. Moderator 118 is responsible to create the smart contract 120 which is distributed on the blockchain 120. To complete the review, the smart contract must meet certain requirements (124). To create an equitable crowdvoting environment, the ideal crowdvoting network relies upon properties of blockchain like CPU power consumption, standard currency and reputation. The moderator can’t place the contract on blockchain. Therefore, the moderator will always get data from the source or curator and generate the contract. He/she will then send it back. This entity will then “mine” the contract, which is the action that places it onto the blockchain.
“The Crowdvoting” platform is being considered. The platform is intended to be real-time curation/review. It includes many components. A content aggregator (the content source 110), may have content that needs to be reviewed/curated. This is done by a network 132 of reviewers/curators who are active on blockchain 120. It is not necessary to have mutual trust between the source 110, moderator (118), and reviewers (132 and 118). Financial transactions are not trustworthy and are subject to the inherit nature blockchain.
The source has made the original contract visible to all parties. However, the source can only modify the contract. When curators are added to the voting list, the moderator asks the source for the curator’s public keys before the vote can be mined to blockchain. The moderator provides only consistency in contract format. The moderator is not able to mine any content and has no control over it. Moderators are responsible for verifying the required number of votes to make a piece of content curated. The system is completely trustless. The curator is guaranteed they will be paid, and the source is sure that the vote was legitimate.
“In operation, the source 110 might have content that needs to be rated/reviewed. The source will send the metadata and content to the moderator, 118 who will create a contract that can be used on the blockchain. The moderator 118 may use the information provided (e.g. sensitivity level, time limit, etc.) to determine how many reviewers are needed to generate a statistically significant average voting vote that is included in the contract. It is possible to determine who is active by using the blockchain as a ledger. Users and the time each user has been reviewing. Their reputation might be public. If individuals with higher reputations are reviewing/curating, then less reviewers will be needed for the curation. Here is where content sensitivity might be worth consideration. Machine learning can be used to discern curator biases based on their voting history on articles. This analysis will show how their votes differ from the average vote. These factors can all be considered to determine the number of curators needed to curate a particular section of content.
The moderator’s presence at this stage is not essential, but it ensures that key properties of the contract have not been omitted or altered by the source. The signature of a moderator signifies that the contract is complete and intact. The source pays the CPU power required to place the contract on the Blockchain and for reviewers to review it. It sends the contract back to the source. A micro-payment in form of CPU power is used to prevent bogus content being uploaded to the blockchain. The cost of CPU power can be described as an expense for the entity mining the contract. For example, CPU power costs money to use certain actions. The CPU power is a way to make sure the blockchain does not become saturated with votes/smart contracts. An entity can still perform all actions by paying to access the blockchain, but it costs them real money. For example, miners ?pay? By using electricity to mine.
A time limit can be placed based on the type or event that is associated with the content. For example, a streaming of a sporting event. The content feed can be discarded after the game has ended. This type of feed will last less than an hour, so a curation time of under 10 minutes is recommended. Another example is a car race that can last several hours. A curation time of less than 30 minutes may be more appropriate.
“In regard to the source, the source might have a pair cryptographic keys. The source may request a contract form the moderator and send data signed with a source private secret. Data may contain a?SourcePublicKey?”, a content URL and a sensitivity level set by machine learning. The expiration date/time when the content must be reviewed can also be included. With regard to the moderator, the moderator receives the data, verifies the integrity of the data sent by the source by verifying the signature, generates contract data, signs the data via a ?ModeratorPrivateKey?. Data includes a??SourcePublicKey?, content URL, expiration date/time/date, number of votes/reviews (based on sensitivity), and a smart contractual. A smart contract could include a curators’ list, which can be modified and to which reviewers may be added. The source will release funds to curators if there are enough votes. The Source must have funds. They can convert standard currency into?altcoins? They can convert standard currency to?altcoins? at the current market rate in order to pay curators. There is a difference in the classification of altcoins converted from standard currency and those acquired through a smart contract. The source gets the contract data and mines it to place it on the blockchain. If the content is pertinent and contains contested views, it is considered?sensitive?. Similar to online platforms which will not allow anyone with more than?x? Posts that contain political content will be subject to reputation commentary. More sensitive content on the blockchain would require more people reviewing it and may require a stricter weighting system to determine the votes that are received.
“The content is assigned a score by the reviewer/curator. Reviewers may monitor the blockchain to identify new moderator-signed contracts with content that are available for review. The content will be viewed by those who are authorized to view it. This viewer tracks the curator’s interaction with the content. Such applications will keep track of time and verify that the content has been reviewed. The moderator will securely send the recorded interaction time to him to create the vote contract. The contract generated will contain an element that allows the curator to pay more for votes with a higher weight. This stage is not possible for the reviewer. The moderator will send the information of the reviewers to the source. They must then add the reviewer’s information to the original contract to allow them to be paid. Only the source has mutable access the original content contract on Blockchain. This happens before the vote contract is sent back to the reviewer. The source must also pay the reviewer to vote.
“The moderator will send the contract to the reviewer for them to mine. This ensures that they pay the content’s vote. Reputation may be used to decrease CPU mining time for reviewers who are consistent and follow guidelines.
“The curator or reviewer consumes the content in the moderator authorized viewer application, the reviewer may exit the content and assign a score, the application requests the contract from the moderator, the authorized viewer sends the data signed including a ?ModeratorApprovedViewerPublicKey?, a ?CuratorPublicKey?, and a ?ContentContractAddress?. This contract may have been created by the source. Data may also include data such as active time viewing content, score, review date/time stamp, and altcoins. To reduce the CPU required for mining, altcoins that have been acquired by reputation can be traded in.
“The moderator may verify the ?ModeratorApprovedViewerPublicKey? The moderator may verify that the viewing application is approved, then verify the signature and generate a contract. However, the curator must first send the public key to the source to ensure that the curator receives the funds when they are curated. Next, the contract is signed via a ?ModeratorPrivateKey? Next, the contract is signed via a ‘ModeratorPrivateKey? Once the contract has been curated, funds will be provided. To increase the difficulty of mining, the curator may have their assigned score padded with random bits. Due to the fact that contract size is proportional with mining time, it may take more CPU power to mine the contract. If the reviewer is willing and able to trade in reputation (altcoins earned through smart contracts), this process can be shortened. The reviewer can decrease the time it takes to mine the vote by trading reputation. Reviewers will receive funds based on the date/time stamp they reviewed.
“As a reward? Altcoins are anonymous virtual currencies distributed anonymously. Altcoins are a way to gauge your reputation. If their vote is accepted widely, they will receive funds. If someone has large amounts of altcoins, they have to have curated many smart contracts and their votes must have been widely accepted. This is similar to a transaction rating in a website. One can pay for their vote in electricity, i.e. the cost of running a CPU, when mining. Mining solves a difficult math problem. This is proportional to smart contract size. The user can reduce the complexity of the math problem by “paying” instead of spending a lot on their electricity bill. To make it simpler, they can use their reputation. In return for what they want, they will lose some of their reputation. This is done in the hope that their vote will be widely accepted and provide them with more altcoins. Moderator handles the modification of math problems complexity. Moderator, for example, will pad the score with random numbers to increase its complexity. The number of random bits that are added to altcoins is reduced, which makes it easier to mine and smaller. If one wants to “cash out”, there are many places online that can trade altcoins in USD or other currencies. Some of their reputation.
“The source could add the?CuratorPublicKey?” sent to smart contract object?Curator? In the contract. The moderator can send the contract for voting to the reviewer. The contract may be mined by the curator/reviewer and placed on the blockchain. Voters receive a payment when the original content’s smart contracts register the vote. This is based on review requirements 124. The payment comes in the form reputation altcoins that can be converted into standard currency or used to decrease CPU time when mining future votes contracts.
“FIG. 2. This diagram shows a system signaling diagram for content review smart contracts that are created by a content source to be used in a blockchain for peer-review by reviewers, according to examples. Referring to FIG. FIG. 2 shows the system 200. It includes a content source computer 210 and/or moderator computer 215, a blockchain 220 on computer 210 or another computer, and one or more reviewers computers 230. Based on the content and other factors, it may be possible to identify content for review 212. Potential reviewers can be identified based on their reputations and/or other factors 216. The contract can be created 218 to be sent to the Blockchain 222. It will then be attached to the Blockchain 224. Reviewers can access the contract 226 along with the guidelines for performing the evaluation. One or more reviewers can perform the review 228. For future audits and accuracy, the review data can also be updated via blockchain 232. The reviewers can be compensated 234 once they have met the requirements.
“FIG. 3A shows a flow diagram of a method for content peer review in blockchain according to examples. Referring to FIG. Referring to FIG. 3A, the method 300 could include creating a smart agreement identifying content and reviewing requirements for performing a content review 312, signing and validating smart contract 314, and storing smart contract in a Blockchain 316. The review requirements may include a minimum or maximum review time, the content’s sensitivity, the number of reviewers required, and the time it takes to complete the review. The method can also confirm that the content review was completed, verify that the review criteria were met when content was reviewed, and reward the reviewers. This method can also be used to determine the minimum number of reviewers required to meet the average vote requirement. There are many factors that determine the minimum number of reviewers required to meet the average vote requirement. Some factors include a reviewer’s sensitivity and time limit. This method could also include storing the minimum number required to meet the average vote requirement in a smart contract and transmitting it to the source of the content. The source then takes the smart contract from the moderator and mines it, putting it on the Blockchain.
“FIG. 3B shows a flow diagram 350 for another example of content peer review in a blockchain according to examples. This method could include creating a smart agreement to identify content to be reviewed 352, signing the smart contract 354, validating it 354, and storing the smartcontract in a blockchain 356. The smart contract can also be used to receive content review feedback from one reviewer of the content 358. Finally, the smart contract can be modified to include the content review feedback 364.
The content is reviewed in accordance with the review guidelines. However, the reviewer feedback can be more than positive or negative. The user actions could include user behavior, reactions and emotions, as well as gestures. These are recorded using one or more peripheral sensors that are connected to the user interface (e.g. microphone, noise sensors and motion sensors, camera, etc.). To allow the content creator access to specific user feedback, the user actions can be recorded during a review session. A user might laugh loudly or do other actions during a review session. These actions can be used to determine which parts of the content are important, relevant, and/or crucial to the success of future content. This provides evidence that the content is working or not for its intended purpose. This information, along with feedback files for the content, may be stored on the blockchain.
The above embodiments can be implemented in hardware, in computer programs executed by a processor or in firmware. A computer program can be embedded on a computer-readable medium such as a storage media. A computer program could, for example, reside in random access memory. ), flash memory or read-only memory (??ROM?). ), erasable, programmable read only memory (?EPROM) ), Electrically erasable, programmable read only memory (?EEPROM) Registers, registers, hard drive, a removable disc, a compact disk read only memory (?CDROM?),?EEPROM? ), or any other storage medium that is known to the art.
“An example storage medium could be connected to the processor so that the processor can read and write to the storage medium. Alternativly, the storage medium could be integrated with the processor. The application-specific integrated circuit (?ASIC?) may house the processor and storage medium. Alternativly, the storage medium and processor may be located as separate components. FIG. FIG. 4 shows an example of a network element 400 that could be used in or integrated into any of the components described above.
“As illustrated at FIG. “As illustrated in FIG. The software code of the application can be written in a language that is understood by processor 420 and stored on a computer-readable medium such as a memory. A computer readable media may be non-transitory and contain tangible hardware components such as memory that can store software. A software module 430 could be another separate entity that forms part of the network entity 400. It may contain software instructions that can be executed by processor 420 to perform one or more functions. The network entity 400 may include the components mentioned above, as well as a transmitter-receiver pair that can receive and transmit communications signals (not illustrated).
“An exemplary embodiment of at most one of a system and method has been shown in the accompanying drawings and described in detail in the foregoing description. However, it is clear that the application is not limited by the disclosed embodiments. It is also capable of many rearrangements, modifications and substitutions as defined and claimed in the following claims. The system can perform the functions shown in the figures by any combination of one or more modules or components. It may also be implemented in a distributed architecture that includes a transmitter, receiver, or a pair of them. One or more modules may perform all or part the functionality of individual modules. The functionality described in this document can be performed at different times and with respect to various events, whether internal or external to the components or modules. Information can also be sent between modules using at least one of the following: the Internet, the Internet Protocol network, a voice network or an Internet Protocol network. A wireless device, wired device, and/or multiple protocols are all possible. The messages that are sent and received by any module may be sent directly or via one or more modules.
“A?system’ is something that anyone skilled in the art can appreciate. A?system’ could be described as a personal computer or server, a console or a console, a console or a personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, tablet computing device or smartphone, or any combination of these devices. The functions described above are referred to as being performed by a “system”. This is not meant to limit the scope or limitations of the present application, but it is intended to illustrate one of many possible embodiments. Methods, systems, and apparatuses described herein can be implemented in both localized and distributed forms compatible with computing technology.
“It is important to note that not all system features are described here in modules. This is in order to emphasize their independence in implementation. A module could be implemented in a hardware circuit that includes custom very large scale integration (VLSI), gate arrays, off the shelf semiconductors like logic chips, transistors, and other discrete components. You can also implement a module in programmable hardware devices like field programmable gate arrangements, programmable array logics, programmable logic units, and the like.
“A module can also be implemented in software to allow execution by different types of processors. A unit of executable code can, for example, contain one or more physical blocks or logical blocks that include computer instructions. These instructions may be organized in a number of ways, such as object, procedure, function. The executables of an identified unit of executable code do not have to be physically located together. They may contain different instructions that are stored in different locations and, when combined logically, form the module. Modules can also be stored on computer-readable media, such as a hard drive, flash device or random access memory (RAM), tape or any other medium that stores data.
A module of executable software could contain one or more instructions and can be distributed across multiple code segments, between different programs, or across multiple memory devices. Similar to operational data, it can be identified and illustrated in modules. It may also be organized into any type of data structure and in any form. Operational data can be collected in one data set or distributed across multiple locations, including different storage devices. They may also exist at least partially as electronic signals within a system or network.
It will be clear that components of the invention, as shown in the figures, can be placed and designed in many different ways. The detailed descriptions of the embodiments are not meant to limit the scope or claim of the application. They only represent a few embodiments of that application.
“One with ordinary skill in art will quickly understand that the steps described above can be performed in a different order and/or with hardware elements that are not disclosed. Although the preferred embodiments have been described, it is obvious to those skilled in the art that there are many modifications, variations and other constructions.
“Preferred embodiments of this application have been described. However, it is to understand that these embodiments are only illustrative and the scope is to be determined solely by the appended Claims when considered with all equivalents and modifications (e.g. protocols, hardware devices etc.). thereto.”
Summary for “Incentive-based crowdvoting using blockchain”
A blockchain can be used to perform various financial transactions because it is a shared ledger system. Crowdsourcing is used to achieve certain goals. Website owners and operators want their users to be engaged on the site as long as possible. The more time a user spends on the site, the more revenue they can make (for example, through sales or advertising). Review or curation may be used to rank web contents, placing the most popular content at the top in a site’s datafeed. This reduces bounce rates and engages the user. Traditional methods for reviewing and voting are not suitable for live content outlets such as news or live stream video. Conventional approaches lack spontaneity, and are limited by the availability of dedicated people who are constantly and efficiently reviewing. Although curating content can be described as simply ranking the content (which might suffice if it is already seen by a large audience who has access to real-time content), ranking content based on views or a “like”? A lack of distribution would make it difficult to measure quality. The website owner or operator cannot perform curation/review effectively since they cannot represent all the opinions of consumers or the entire user base without bias. Voting on content can be automated, may not occur in real-time and may not consider how much content was actually consumed.
One example of operation is to create a smart agreement, identify content and review requirements, sign and validate the smart deal, store the smart contract on blockchain, receive content review feedback from one reviewer of the content, then amend the blockchain to include that feedback.
“Another example embodiment could include a processor that can perform one or more of: create a smart agreement that identifies content and review criteria to perform a review, sign and validate that smart contract, store smart contract in a Blockchain, and a receiver that is configured to receive feedback on content from one or more reviewers. The processor may also be configured to amend the Blockchain to include the content review feedback.
“Another example embodiment could include a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions that, when executed, cause a processor perform one or more of the following: creating a smart agreement, identifying content and reviewing requirements for performing a content review, signing and validating smart contract, storing smart contract on blockchain, receiving feedback from one reviewer of the content, amending the blockchain to reflect the content review feedback.
It will be apparent that the components of the instant invention, as shown in the figures, can be placed in many different ways. The following description of the embodiments, including at least one, of a method and apparatus, non-transitory computing readable medium, and system, as illustrated in the attached figures is not intended limit the scope or claim, but it is representative of select embodiments.
“The instant features and structures or characteristics described in this specification can be combined in any way that suits the purposes of one or more embodiments. The usage of phrases like “example embodiments”, “some embodiments”, or similar language throughout this specification indicates that an embodiment could include a specific feature, structure, or characteristic related to the embodiment. The phrases “example embodiments”, “in some embodiments?”, “in other embodiments?”, or any other similar language throughout this specification don’t necessarily refer to the same group. Furthermore, the features, structures, and characteristics described in this specification may be combined in any way that suits the needs of one or more embodiments.
Crowdsourcing is related to Crowdvoting. It aims to involve communities through the promotion of collaboration and organization through the ranking digital content. The accepted rule of?1 to10:89? The rule states that 100 people can publish original content and 10 will vote for it. 89 people will consume it passively. In one embodiment, the instant application uses a Blockchain to crowdsource and, more specifically, to submit smart contract to a Blockchain to allow reviewers to access and review content in order to provide crowd-based feedback or “crowdvoting”. For various purposes.”
“FIG. 1. illustrates a Blockchain logic diagram for storing smart contracts on a blockchain. This can be used to review them (for example, by peer review). Referring to FIG. Referring to FIG. 1, the logic block diagram 100 shows various components that can be found in one or more devices, including a processor as well as memory. The content source 110 is the identifier of content 112 that will be reviewed or?crowdvoted. Reviewers 132. Moderator 118 is responsible to create the smart contract 120 which is distributed on the blockchain 120. To complete the review, the smart contract must meet certain requirements (124). To create an equitable crowdvoting environment, the ideal crowdvoting network relies upon properties of blockchain like CPU power consumption, standard currency and reputation. The moderator can’t place the contract on blockchain. Therefore, the moderator will always get data from the source or curator and generate the contract. He/she will then send it back. This entity will then “mine” the contract, which is the action that places it onto the blockchain.
“The Crowdvoting” platform is being considered. The platform is intended to be real-time curation/review. It includes many components. A content aggregator (the content source 110), may have content that needs to be reviewed/curated. This is done by a network 132 of reviewers/curators who are active on blockchain 120. It is not necessary to have mutual trust between the source 110, moderator (118), and reviewers (132 and 118). Financial transactions are not trustworthy and are subject to the inherit nature blockchain.
The source has made the original contract visible to all parties. However, the source can only modify the contract. When curators are added to the voting list, the moderator asks the source for the curator’s public keys before the vote can be mined to blockchain. The moderator provides only consistency in contract format. The moderator is not able to mine any content and has no control over it. Moderators are responsible for verifying the required number of votes to make a piece of content curated. The system is completely trustless. The curator is guaranteed they will be paid, and the source is sure that the vote was legitimate.
“In operation, the source 110 might have content that needs to be rated/reviewed. The source will send the metadata and content to the moderator, 118 who will create a contract that can be used on the blockchain. The moderator 118 may use the information provided (e.g. sensitivity level, time limit, etc.) to determine how many reviewers are needed to generate a statistically significant average voting vote that is included in the contract. It is possible to determine who is active by using the blockchain as a ledger. Users and the time each user has been reviewing. Their reputation might be public. If individuals with higher reputations are reviewing/curating, then less reviewers will be needed for the curation. Here is where content sensitivity might be worth consideration. Machine learning can be used to discern curator biases based on their voting history on articles. This analysis will show how their votes differ from the average vote. These factors can all be considered to determine the number of curators needed to curate a particular section of content.
The moderator’s presence at this stage is not essential, but it ensures that key properties of the contract have not been omitted or altered by the source. The signature of a moderator signifies that the contract is complete and intact. The source pays the CPU power required to place the contract on the Blockchain and for reviewers to review it. It sends the contract back to the source. A micro-payment in form of CPU power is used to prevent bogus content being uploaded to the blockchain. The cost of CPU power can be described as an expense for the entity mining the contract. For example, CPU power costs money to use certain actions. The CPU power is a way to make sure the blockchain does not become saturated with votes/smart contracts. An entity can still perform all actions by paying to access the blockchain, but it costs them real money. For example, miners ?pay? By using electricity to mine.
A time limit can be placed based on the type or event that is associated with the content. For example, a streaming of a sporting event. The content feed can be discarded after the game has ended. This type of feed will last less than an hour, so a curation time of under 10 minutes is recommended. Another example is a car race that can last several hours. A curation time of less than 30 minutes may be more appropriate.
“In regard to the source, the source might have a pair cryptographic keys. The source may request a contract form the moderator and send data signed with a source private secret. Data may contain a?SourcePublicKey?”, a content URL and a sensitivity level set by machine learning. The expiration date/time when the content must be reviewed can also be included. With regard to the moderator, the moderator receives the data, verifies the integrity of the data sent by the source by verifying the signature, generates contract data, signs the data via a ?ModeratorPrivateKey?. Data includes a??SourcePublicKey?, content URL, expiration date/time/date, number of votes/reviews (based on sensitivity), and a smart contractual. A smart contract could include a curators’ list, which can be modified and to which reviewers may be added. The source will release funds to curators if there are enough votes. The Source must have funds. They can convert standard currency into?altcoins? They can convert standard currency to?altcoins? at the current market rate in order to pay curators. There is a difference in the classification of altcoins converted from standard currency and those acquired through a smart contract. The source gets the contract data and mines it to place it on the blockchain. If the content is pertinent and contains contested views, it is considered?sensitive?. Similar to online platforms which will not allow anyone with more than?x? Posts that contain political content will be subject to reputation commentary. More sensitive content on the blockchain would require more people reviewing it and may require a stricter weighting system to determine the votes that are received.
“The content is assigned a score by the reviewer/curator. Reviewers may monitor the blockchain to identify new moderator-signed contracts with content that are available for review. The content will be viewed by those who are authorized to view it. This viewer tracks the curator’s interaction with the content. Such applications will keep track of time and verify that the content has been reviewed. The moderator will securely send the recorded interaction time to him to create the vote contract. The contract generated will contain an element that allows the curator to pay more for votes with a higher weight. This stage is not possible for the reviewer. The moderator will send the information of the reviewers to the source. They must then add the reviewer’s information to the original contract to allow them to be paid. Only the source has mutable access the original content contract on Blockchain. This happens before the vote contract is sent back to the reviewer. The source must also pay the reviewer to vote.
“The moderator will send the contract to the reviewer for them to mine. This ensures that they pay the content’s vote. Reputation may be used to decrease CPU mining time for reviewers who are consistent and follow guidelines.
“The curator or reviewer consumes the content in the moderator authorized viewer application, the reviewer may exit the content and assign a score, the application requests the contract from the moderator, the authorized viewer sends the data signed including a ?ModeratorApprovedViewerPublicKey?, a ?CuratorPublicKey?, and a ?ContentContractAddress?. This contract may have been created by the source. Data may also include data such as active time viewing content, score, review date/time stamp, and altcoins. To reduce the CPU required for mining, altcoins that have been acquired by reputation can be traded in.
“The moderator may verify the ?ModeratorApprovedViewerPublicKey? The moderator may verify that the viewing application is approved, then verify the signature and generate a contract. However, the curator must first send the public key to the source to ensure that the curator receives the funds when they are curated. Next, the contract is signed via a ?ModeratorPrivateKey? Next, the contract is signed via a ‘ModeratorPrivateKey? Once the contract has been curated, funds will be provided. To increase the difficulty of mining, the curator may have their assigned score padded with random bits. Due to the fact that contract size is proportional with mining time, it may take more CPU power to mine the contract. If the reviewer is willing and able to trade in reputation (altcoins earned through smart contracts), this process can be shortened. The reviewer can decrease the time it takes to mine the vote by trading reputation. Reviewers will receive funds based on the date/time stamp they reviewed.
“As a reward? Altcoins are anonymous virtual currencies distributed anonymously. Altcoins are a way to gauge your reputation. If their vote is accepted widely, they will receive funds. If someone has large amounts of altcoins, they have to have curated many smart contracts and their votes must have been widely accepted. This is similar to a transaction rating in a website. One can pay for their vote in electricity, i.e. the cost of running a CPU, when mining. Mining solves a difficult math problem. This is proportional to smart contract size. The user can reduce the complexity of the math problem by “paying” instead of spending a lot on their electricity bill. To make it simpler, they can use their reputation. In return for what they want, they will lose some of their reputation. This is done in the hope that their vote will be widely accepted and provide them with more altcoins. Moderator handles the modification of math problems complexity. Moderator, for example, will pad the score with random numbers to increase its complexity. The number of random bits that are added to altcoins is reduced, which makes it easier to mine and smaller. If one wants to “cash out”, there are many places online that can trade altcoins in USD or other currencies. Some of their reputation.
“The source could add the?CuratorPublicKey?” sent to smart contract object?Curator? In the contract. The moderator can send the contract for voting to the reviewer. The contract may be mined by the curator/reviewer and placed on the blockchain. Voters receive a payment when the original content’s smart contracts register the vote. This is based on review requirements 124. The payment comes in the form reputation altcoins that can be converted into standard currency or used to decrease CPU time when mining future votes contracts.
“FIG. 2. This diagram shows a system signaling diagram for content review smart contracts that are created by a content source to be used in a blockchain for peer-review by reviewers, according to examples. Referring to FIG. FIG. 2 shows the system 200. It includes a content source computer 210 and/or moderator computer 215, a blockchain 220 on computer 210 or another computer, and one or more reviewers computers 230. Based on the content and other factors, it may be possible to identify content for review 212. Potential reviewers can be identified based on their reputations and/or other factors 216. The contract can be created 218 to be sent to the Blockchain 222. It will then be attached to the Blockchain 224. Reviewers can access the contract 226 along with the guidelines for performing the evaluation. One or more reviewers can perform the review 228. For future audits and accuracy, the review data can also be updated via blockchain 232. The reviewers can be compensated 234 once they have met the requirements.
“FIG. 3A shows a flow diagram of a method for content peer review in blockchain according to examples. Referring to FIG. Referring to FIG. 3A, the method 300 could include creating a smart agreement identifying content and reviewing requirements for performing a content review 312, signing and validating smart contract 314, and storing smart contract in a Blockchain 316. The review requirements may include a minimum or maximum review time, the content’s sensitivity, the number of reviewers required, and the time it takes to complete the review. The method can also confirm that the content review was completed, verify that the review criteria were met when content was reviewed, and reward the reviewers. This method can also be used to determine the minimum number of reviewers required to meet the average vote requirement. There are many factors that determine the minimum number of reviewers required to meet the average vote requirement. Some factors include a reviewer’s sensitivity and time limit. This method could also include storing the minimum number required to meet the average vote requirement in a smart contract and transmitting it to the source of the content. The source then takes the smart contract from the moderator and mines it, putting it on the Blockchain.
“FIG. 3B shows a flow diagram 350 for another example of content peer review in a blockchain according to examples. This method could include creating a smart agreement to identify content to be reviewed 352, signing the smart contract 354, validating it 354, and storing the smartcontract in a blockchain 356. The smart contract can also be used to receive content review feedback from one reviewer of the content 358. Finally, the smart contract can be modified to include the content review feedback 364.
The content is reviewed in accordance with the review guidelines. However, the reviewer feedback can be more than positive or negative. The user actions could include user behavior, reactions and emotions, as well as gestures. These are recorded using one or more peripheral sensors that are connected to the user interface (e.g. microphone, noise sensors and motion sensors, camera, etc.). To allow the content creator access to specific user feedback, the user actions can be recorded during a review session. A user might laugh loudly or do other actions during a review session. These actions can be used to determine which parts of the content are important, relevant, and/or crucial to the success of future content. This provides evidence that the content is working or not for its intended purpose. This information, along with feedback files for the content, may be stored on the blockchain.
The above embodiments can be implemented in hardware, in computer programs executed by a processor or in firmware. A computer program can be embedded on a computer-readable medium such as a storage media. A computer program could, for example, reside in random access memory. ), flash memory or read-only memory (??ROM?). ), erasable, programmable read only memory (?EPROM) ), Electrically erasable, programmable read only memory (?EEPROM) Registers, registers, hard drive, a removable disc, a compact disk read only memory (?CDROM?),?EEPROM? ), or any other storage medium that is known to the art.
“An example storage medium could be connected to the processor so that the processor can read and write to the storage medium. Alternativly, the storage medium could be integrated with the processor. The application-specific integrated circuit (?ASIC?) may house the processor and storage medium. Alternativly, the storage medium and processor may be located as separate components. FIG. FIG. 4 shows an example of a network element 400 that could be used in or integrated into any of the components described above.
“As illustrated at FIG. “As illustrated in FIG. The software code of the application can be written in a language that is understood by processor 420 and stored on a computer-readable medium such as a memory. A computer readable media may be non-transitory and contain tangible hardware components such as memory that can store software. A software module 430 could be another separate entity that forms part of the network entity 400. It may contain software instructions that can be executed by processor 420 to perform one or more functions. The network entity 400 may include the components mentioned above, as well as a transmitter-receiver pair that can receive and transmit communications signals (not illustrated).
“An exemplary embodiment of at most one of a system and method has been shown in the accompanying drawings and described in detail in the foregoing description. However, it is clear that the application is not limited by the disclosed embodiments. It is also capable of many rearrangements, modifications and substitutions as defined and claimed in the following claims. The system can perform the functions shown in the figures by any combination of one or more modules or components. It may also be implemented in a distributed architecture that includes a transmitter, receiver, or a pair of them. One or more modules may perform all or part the functionality of individual modules. The functionality described in this document can be performed at different times and with respect to various events, whether internal or external to the components or modules. Information can also be sent between modules using at least one of the following: the Internet, the Internet Protocol network, a voice network or an Internet Protocol network. A wireless device, wired device, and/or multiple protocols are all possible. The messages that are sent and received by any module may be sent directly or via one or more modules.
“A?system’ is something that anyone skilled in the art can appreciate. A?system’ could be described as a personal computer or server, a console or a console, a console or a personal digital assistant (PDA), cell phone, tablet computing device or smartphone, or any combination of these devices. The functions described above are referred to as being performed by a “system”. This is not meant to limit the scope or limitations of the present application, but it is intended to illustrate one of many possible embodiments. Methods, systems, and apparatuses described herein can be implemented in both localized and distributed forms compatible with computing technology.
“It is important to note that not all system features are described here in modules. This is in order to emphasize their independence in implementation. A module could be implemented in a hardware circuit that includes custom very large scale integration (VLSI), gate arrays, off the shelf semiconductors like logic chips, transistors, and other discrete components. You can also implement a module in programmable hardware devices like field programmable gate arrangements, programmable array logics, programmable logic units, and the like.
“A module can also be implemented in software to allow execution by different types of processors. A unit of executable code can, for example, contain one or more physical blocks or logical blocks that include computer instructions. These instructions may be organized in a number of ways, such as object, procedure, function. The executables of an identified unit of executable code do not have to be physically located together. They may contain different instructions that are stored in different locations and, when combined logically, form the module. Modules can also be stored on computer-readable media, such as a hard drive, flash device or random access memory (RAM), tape or any other medium that stores data.
A module of executable software could contain one or more instructions and can be distributed across multiple code segments, between different programs, or across multiple memory devices. Similar to operational data, it can be identified and illustrated in modules. It may also be organized into any type of data structure and in any form. Operational data can be collected in one data set or distributed across multiple locations, including different storage devices. They may also exist at least partially as electronic signals within a system or network.
It will be clear that components of the invention, as shown in the figures, can be placed and designed in many different ways. The detailed descriptions of the embodiments are not meant to limit the scope or claim of the application. They only represent a few embodiments of that application.
“One with ordinary skill in art will quickly understand that the steps described above can be performed in a different order and/or with hardware elements that are not disclosed. Although the preferred embodiments have been described, it is obvious to those skilled in the art that there are many modifications, variations and other constructions.
“Preferred embodiments of this application have been described. However, it is to understand that these embodiments are only illustrative and the scope is to be determined solely by the appended Claims when considered with all equivalents and modifications (e.g. protocols, hardware devices etc.). thereto.”
Click here to view the patent on Google Patents.