On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm > confronted to a choice : > > The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think > it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust > levels on other identities.
Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two local identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there would be two different *reading* clients as well as posting. > > Possibilities are : > > 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the > same trust tree. > 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own > trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while > another won't. > > In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one > where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite > unlikely, isn't it ?). > > The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values > for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a > "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with. > > What do you think ? I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be easily linked together, just as Frost did. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080513/fd6bf4ff/attachment.pgp>
