On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:25 AM, danimoth <danim...@cryptolab.net> wrote:
> I could accept x bytes, so someone is granting me IOUs for that. I throw > all things on the trash, and meanwhile (before someone mark me as > unreliable, which needs some time) I could spend all IOUs I earned > There's a few things wrong with this that are easy to solve: You don't get a IOU until you successfully provide storage service for a period of time (in the Cryptosphere, I said 1 day). This means that as a provider of storage service, you run the risk of a peer ripping you off and getting you to provide storage service for them for free, at which point you have to shrug it off, blacklist them, and never do business with them again. Like a landlord leasing property, sometimes you have to deal with crappy tenants, but you can at least try to learn as much as you can from their reputation before actually trying to do business with them. before, which will be valid (regardless my unreliability) in the future > for the other peers. A cycle could be closed, if time to find me is too > high (or time to close a cycle too low). So, someone other will pay my > lies. One thing I'd like to avoid is having the IOU system turn into any sort of generalized currency (*cough*Mojo*cough*). It should be an obligation one peer owes another as part of a direct relationship. I would like to support a sort of triangle-trade operation that people were describing earlier (although perhaps not anonymized), but that would be it: maximum one degree of separation from someone you trust directly. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
