I am looking for some decentralized type system, maybe similar to dType developed by @loredanacirstea (?). It should…:
- be permissionless
- be sybill resistant
- not assume for any of the actors to have indisputable right to set the truth.
- provide game-theoretical incentives…
a) to collapse semantically identical types into the single one
b) to split one type into two and more semantically different types.
1, 2 and 3 are solved by continuous voting: https://youtu.be/9ljWZgQT2q4
This is a better version of dType than the one described in the EIPs:
https://youtu.be/XMCgL99noYY?t=499. And now we are working on a 3-rd version. So I don’t know yet what will suit you best.
In what ways do you want to use dType on-chain, and in what ways off-chain?
Regarding a) we had already a version where types were defined by structure, hence collapsible if the structure was the same.
Regarding b) we also had a version where you could create two different names for types with the same structure.
We could probably have a mix.
When do you expect to use dType?
thank you for your prompt reply!
We need to adopt some decentralized type system ASAP, but I need to spend diving dType few days more to understand how (and if) it could fit our requirements.
Our UseCase is to tag the off-chain data with type information and request data records based on the attached type info. We need to determine if one type is assignable to another one, but I see no further on-chain operations. Maybe even this operation can be defined off-chain, then we don’t need on-chain processing at all.
We see two challenges:
- type system should allow building efficient indexes in the swarm network to retrieve the data (swarm uses decentralized KV storage).
- preventing the creation of different types with identical semantic. Preventing spam.
I need to check if our domains are close enough…
anyway a lot of thanks for prompt reply!