On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 8:30 PM, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> If A trusts B, and B trusts C, and C trusts D, and D trusts E, and any > errors hurt primarily the person who trusted unwisely, where is the problem? > These sorts of extended chains of trust seem to be ripe for Sybil attacks. One trusted introducer can be the gateway into a deep network of Sybils. By only allowing one degree of separation, instead of: [You] -> [Trusted Partner] -> [Potential Sybil] -> [Potential Sybil] -> [Potential Sybil] -> [Potential Sybil] you instead just have: [You] -> [Trusted Partner] -> [Potential Sybil] The only person is question is one you're directly interacting with, not an extended network of potentially untrusted people. By interacting with them you gain empirical knowledge and thus you are never vicariously trusting anyone you've never interacted with, you only work with untrusted parties at a single degree of separation from trusted parties. n00bs, lacking trusted partners, may have to work with anyone willing to give them a shot and are probably ripe to get abused in such a situation. Sucks to be a n00b. But that's why I'd like to have networks of friends bootstrap each other into the trust network. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
