09.07. Challanges - decided and finished


Creating an encoding standard is relatively easy compared to the human work that needs to go into verifying that lat/long positions are actually specific addresses…

We’ve seen this issue a bunch of times on the map already, where mapbox’s auto-population of addresses based on lat/long is incorrect, and the point has to be fixed.

Given this, I’d say it does select for truth.


Huh? If you’re going to post, at least write something that makes sense. Someone just voted valid (and won) not because ‘valid’ was true, but rather because valid was profitable. These are the current incentives. Feel free to pretend otherwise, but the evidence is right in front of you.

Also the issue you’re identifying is an issue that Mapbox has in translating lats/longs. It’s particular to that application and totally beside the point I was making. There is no database issue in translating lats and longs to something that blockchain can store. You’re confusing a UI issue with a DB one.


Given what I had said here above that…

…it does select for truth. Most of when it doesn’t select for truth is when it receives malicious shocks, but it eventually recovers and the malicious challenger/voter loses. Not going to go back through my entire post here on why I believe that’s the wrong tactic to push fixes.

My point is that there is value in a TCR, in that it encourages curation of an open map. Other open maps don’t have explicit financial incentives. How can you argue for profiteering on the map, but then argue against there being any reason in having a map that has financial incentives. Are you really just advocating robbery?


I’m saying that TCRs are a tough sell. The Kleros one is being gamed, and so is this one. I’m not arguing for profiteering. I’m just noting that profit and truth aren’t the same thing, and making them align is very very difficult.

You can’t just assert that it ‘does select for truth.’ You need to provide evidence. You showing me that the challenges were legit (and yet lost) is arguing my case for me.

I’m also claiming that the truly innovative part of Foam is POL, and that it can work very well without named points. All the people in this forum are focused on the map, but POL is the secret sauce.

Theoretically, sure there is value there in the TCR, but when the centralized solutions work so well (and they really do work well–billions of people use them to navigate each and every day), why try to reinvent the wheel when POL is actually new and requires a ton of its own energy? It makes no sense given limited budgets and team size.


I thank the voters for their honest participation.
As soon as my voting credit is unlocked I will renew the POIs.


In the meantime, all we have of dPOL is one demo, almost a year later.

It is never going to work, which is why a year later they have nothing to show. The FOAM team is spending their time creating fancy sidechain implementations using exotic programming languages, but there is no chance in this world that a ground based network of base stations will be able to achieve any location accuracy.


Would be great if you could share a new post with more explanations on what you think the limits of dPOL are. It would be more interesting and effective to have a focused discussion on dPOL developments and challenges.


It’s not really worth it, as Ryan will reply with a 2 page long post linking to 10 prior articles. The proof is in the pudding.

But more importantly is anyone actually working on commercial adoption of any of this technology? Is there a problem being solved? It is not clear to me that anyone believes that using GPS is a problem.


POIs are renewed.
Thank you for your participation.


I do think there are applications, but the silence from team members or leaders in these threads with respect to questions about the tcr, pol progress, and failures in community building is deafening and disheartening. Should we really have to prompt you to participate, @Ryan_foam, @Daryl_Foam?


Wrong discussion
Challenges ended.
Poi’s are renewed.