On Wednesday 31 March 2010 14:16:11 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:42 AM, xor <xor at gmx.li> wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 06:32:58 am Evan Daniel wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Ximin Luo <xl269 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > have you joined the freenet-dev mailing list? in future i'd like to have > >> > these discussions there so that other people can see it too. > >> > > >> > (03:53:26) lusha: hi, can i ask a question about WOT? > >> > (03:55:33) evanbd: No need to ask permission :) > >> > (03:56:12) lusha: is there any document for this? > >> > (03:56:32) lusha: i dont quite understand how they evaluate trust > >> > > >> > (i think) WoT uses a flow-based metric similar to advogato > >> > (www.advogato.org) - see the source code (plugin-WoT-staging), or ask p0s > >> > on IRC (xor on the mailing list) for specific details. atm the > >> > implementation requires retrieving trust scores for everyone on the > >> > network, which won't scale in the long run. > >> > >> No. ?The current WoT code is neither flow-based nor particularly > >> related to the Advogato algorithm. ?It's purely alchemical, having > >> neither a proper specification as to the problem being solved nor any > >> sort of theoretical basis to believe it solves that unspecified > >> problem. > > > > That is true. I should finally do this and answer to your mail w.r.t. to > > your > > prosed alternative algorithm. I'm sorry, ? ? ? ?I'm just trying to make > > everyone > > happy. People want a release of FT/WoT soon so as long as I didn't have much > > time/day I was trying to spend it on writing code. > > > > BUT we should also state that the algorithm itself fortunately is only a > > small > > part of WoT. Most of the work which is required for a working WoT was > > writing > > the class architecture, the captcha stuff, the FCP stuff, adding proper > > synchronization and general glue code. Those are all done and they work. So > > now we have a proper "nest" for embedding any proper trust/score-based > > algorithm in. > > Please don't misunderstand: right now I think usability and any > internal changes you need to do to get WoT / FT ready for release are > far higher priority. I'm greatly appreciative for the work you've > been doing, and think you should keep doing it. There's time enough > for WoT algorithms after that.
Absolutely. But I do think that in the long run we want a positive-trust-only algorithm at least as *an option* for those who care about being able to see newbies. Right now the situation for newbies is that as soon as one or two established identities blackball them that's it, game over. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100401/1d5a772d/attachment.pgp>
