Iāll like to join the ML/DS work-stream based on experiences in Data mining and ML Dev and applications in different fields. Though this background is an unfamiliar territory for me, Iām sure Iād impress upon the team toward getting results
1 Like
Since I canāt participate, thank you very much for this video
2 Likes
How do I get involved, Is the worksheet still open for new entries?
1 Like
We may not be able to totally eliminate these unwholesome practices, but we can make it too expensive so that it becomes less unprofitable. the use of BrightID and other such verification will go a long way to solve the problem.
3 Likes
Hi everyone! @andajun @Imuetinyan @Luvlynj @Cryptosense if you are interested to participate, please input your info in the spreadsheet above and you will be added to future calendar invites.
We are on a few weeks break while we integrate and document learnings from Round 10.
BlockScience just released this article outlining the teamās work and the work of the Anti-Fraud working group in Round 10:
@DisruptionJoe will be providing further updates about working group meetings and plans going forward in the next weeks.
We raised $494 with the groupās Gitcoin grant Gitcoin DAO Anti-Fraud Workstream: Round 10 | Grants | Gitcoin
The funding will be allocated to those who actively participated in the Evaluation Panel in Round 10 and supported working group operations.
A huge THANK YOU! 
for your comments and interest, and to everyone who participated & contributed in Round 10!
6 Likes
Greetings humans! I wanted to create a workstream on Moving to the price of forgery, but just noticed this one. Think itās better to publish here.
Moving to the price of forgery + turning gitcoin into identity provider.
Quality control of human verification methods
(or the way we assign trust bonuses to verification methods)
Systems like Proof of Humanity, Bright ID, Idena, POAP and ENS are already doing an amazing job in moving towards a no-bots future. Yet thereās room for improvement. Which is better quality control and a fairer trust bonus for each method as a result.
@Adamscochran proposed to create a standard assessment procedure for new (and existing) methods. The procedure is incredibly detailed and exhaustive. It can describe literally any existing verification method quantitatively. Yet as well as the current procedure it isā¦
ā¦subjective. we cannot predict the ingenuity of malicious actors. Thereās no way we can think of all the exploits for a particular verification method. And thereās no simple way we can tell the method was exploited. An exploited verification method + exploited quality control algorithm is a Trojan horse for a bot army. So the first problem is the high risk to be a step behind malicious actors.
ā¦and speculative. See how @Adamscochran scored Idena. It is so low that Idena would be kicked out of the approved methods. Iād disagree with that. I love Idena and most probably would propose a different scoring for it or probably would demand to reconsider weights in scoring parameters. But we cannot really determine which weights or scores are right. Thus the second problem is the lack of objective measurement. Without it, we leave room for political games, biased opinions, and unproductive disputes (same as disputes on religion, politics, vaccines;)).
How price of forgery works
The solution to both of the problems described is the price of forgery concept.
The main idea is that the user score is valued in dollars and the user can grab these dollars at any time. After that, the userās ID is deleted forever. The procedure is called āexplosionā in Upala terms (we invented the concept and building the protocol implementing it). Iāll use the term further.
With the price of forgery approach, we donāt have to rely on any assumptions about any verification method. The market will drive the scoring of each method to its price of forgery organically. We also get an assurance for future exploits. If a method got hacked we would see it immediately through an increased explosion rate. That would mean the method should be fixed, or its score should be decreased.
- See more on the price of forgery in this article on EthResearch
- See what we are up to in Upala
How Gitcoin may benefit
Price of forgery gives the ability to quality control human verification methods with market forces. It is unbiased, precise, and responsive to new exploits. For the verification methods It would mean:
- Fairer trust bonuses
- Automated, transparent, and ongoing quality control
- Incentive for third parties to bring new verification methods or invent new ones
The benefits from shifting to the price of forgery go a bit further than ājustā quality control. Gitcoin has tremendous data on interactions on the platform. It is then possible to aggregate scores from multiple sources for a single user (which trust bonuses do), and also append an additional trust bonus to award āproperā internal interaction. That would benefit users and will help assess own algorithms (help understand better what the āproperā behavior is).
And even further. With all that data and algorithms measured with the price of forgery Gitcoin may start providing its own digested scores to other DApps and earn on that (Upala protocol allows to do that). Due to the high user base, it may become a starting point for a decentralized identity system of the future.
Work done, next steps, and coordination
You can track progress on developing the price of forgery protocol here (looking for contributors by the way - weāve got Ampere-hours!).
I had a talk with @owocki about the price of forgery back in September 2020. Then described integration in this github issue. I learned recently that Gitcoin is continuing on the idea - thread. So seems like the Upalaās price of forgery concept is already approved. Though I havenāt had any conversation with the gitcoin team on this and I donāt see any coordination. As Gitcoin is decentralized now I thought it is a good idea to start the discussion here.
Related topics:
- [Workstream] Anti-Fraud Workstream Assemble!
- [Workstream] Self-Sovereign Individuals
- [Proposal] Establishing a New Process for Identify Verification Scoring
Discussion
- How do you feel about turning from manual assessment of verification methods to the price of forgery?
- What are your thoughts on adding identity provider functionality to Gitcoin?
- To Gitcoin team: is the price of forgery really on the roadmap?
I suggest recruiting administrators to ensure that every month or quarter, the account requires human certification. Managers conduct manual reviews at specific times
1 Like
I didnāt get the notifications and missed the calls, Iāll try to watch the videos asap. How can I make sure I get notified of the next one? I added my e-mail and telegram to the spreadsheet.
Next Monthly Community Call tomorrow Add to your calendar here: AddEvent
Full workstream calendar here: AddEvent.com - Sign in
3 Likes
This workstream still active? I filled out the google sheet with my info. Been working with ML algorithms the last 5 years with a background in maths and stats. Happy to get involved
1 Like
Thanks for jumping in, yes this workstream is active but with selective skills and roles
I will review your application.
1 Like
Iād love to learn about this so I can contribute, I know almost nothing about it! Good luckā¦
1 Like
Hey @KriptoHayat, glad to see your enthusiasm. You can apply to the Gitcoin Dao at this address: Gitcoin DAO Onboarding
The new and growing Gitcoin Dao is slowly taking more and more responsibilities. It is possible in the future the Dao will take over the whole grants program and more.
1 Like
Hi all! Why arenāt you using biometric authentication technology to protect against fraud? There is an excellent project Humanode, which allows you to identify a person by biometric characteristics with a certain frequency. In my opinion, this is an excellent tool for protecting against multi-accounts. You can consider the possibility of cooperation with Humanode.
4 Likes
Thank you @clasikman for your interest! @DisruptionJoe is now the WG lead - you can contact him here or on the Gitcoin Discord in the FDD General chat 
1 Like
Hey, is this workstream still active?
The team over at GoodDollar would like to get in touch with you. We like your Passport initiative, and would like to be part of it. Our G$ Wallet works as a form of self sovereign identity, and we recently built functionality to āSign in with GoodDollarā so users can easily register to services that work with G$s. Each one of our 400k+ claimers have been individually verified as a unique human being through biometric 3D face verification with 1:125M false positives and less than 1% false negatives. Photos are not stored, so there is no honeypot. As such, our solution could act as a very good spam/bot prevention, much more useful than Google/Facebook/Twitter. We would be honored to be included alongside BrightID, Idena and PoH to help GitCoin validate unique-human registrations 
Please reach out for a quick chat, you can reach me here or on noak at gooddollar dot org.
1 Like
Sounds interesting. I will send an email!
What we are working on at the moment guys?