Maybe blocking that user that uploaded bad content so he doesn't get it in return? El 29/07/2013 03:50, "realcr" <[email protected]> escribió:
> I have to agree with most of ianG and James words. > Note that your system is vulnerable to Byzantine attacks for example. > However, I have the belief that trust could be made formal in some way, if > done correctly. Maybe more work is needed. > I'm not saying I know how to do it though :) > > @Liam Edwards-Playne: Don't give up as you read our critiques. Maybe they > can help you improve your idea. > I recommend you to read about some other attempts of other people. > Some of them that I can remember right now are: > EigenTrust : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EigenTrust > P2PREP > If you follow these articles you can find many more articles. If I > remember correctly, some of these articles actually prove some ideas > mathematically, which is really cool. > Though they usually assume something more besides the generic symmetry > between users. (For example: That some known set of peers are always > trusted.) > > For me trust is connected with money or property in some way. It means to > me that if I'm paying something, I know I get the goods that I wanted. (And > if I don't, the other side looses about as much as I lose). > Something like reputation in Ebay. > In this context I want to ask another question. Given a known > decentralized monitary solution (For example, bitcoin), do you have any > idea about how to solve that trust problem? > Naively speaking, If I want to create a file sharing program that allows > to transfer files between users, and users actually pay in some way for the > file transfer, How to make sure that clients in the network prefer to give > good service, and not decide to cheat? > > Regards, > real. > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, ianG <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 20/01/13 09:40 AM, James A. Donald wrote: >> > On 2013-01-16 10:17 AM, Liam Edwards-Playne wrote: >> >> Good day to you all, >> >> >> >> I've recently devised a solution for decentralized P2P trust >> >> networking which you might all be interested in. It relies on an >> >> artificial reasoning suite called Subjective Logic to provide methods >> >> for deducing transitive trust. I've written a short 2 page paper to >> >> detail the protocol - http://4abf.net/static/2013/jan/trust4.pdf >> >> I'll be happy to answer any questions and discuss any critiques. >> >> Regards, >> >> Liam (liamzebedee) Edwards-Playne >> >> >> > >> > It is not obvious to me how this performs should Bob create a million >> > sybils to say that Bob is good. >> > >> > The system is designed to support generic trust. What are we >> > trusting? Are we trusting Bob to be truthful, trusting Bob to pay his >> > debts, trusting Bob to wisely curate content? Each of these is subject >> > to subtly different attacks. >> > >> > Any trust scheme has to manage information about the probability of a >> > probability, or rather the probability distribution of a probability >> > distribution, abstractions that are hard to grasp, and I had a >> > particularly hard time grasping them when they were not anchored to the >> > probability of any particular event. >> >> >> One thing that bedevils such systems is a weak definition (or a complete >> confusion) as to what "trust" means: >> >> A naive approach would be to retrieve trust as it is needed, >> receiving the latest trust information at the cost of inefficiency. >> >> Indeed, such makes no sense. It is not possible to "retrieve trust" any >> more than it is possible to download love, transmit units of fear, or >> sell hunger. >> >> This assumption that "trust" can be unitised is what underpins most >> systems -- they create single data units which are moved around. This >> is more because the designers are computer programmers, and to them, >> everything is a datum. >> >> If one challenges that assumption, that "trust" cannot be unitised itno >> a tidy data structure, then we're back to the drawing board. >> >> As intimated above, and perhaps in that paper, we instead want >> statements. ”a node will provide the most correct responses” But an >> analysis of the statements as they are applied to multiple nodes also >> reveals that we need a much more sophisticated structure about those >> statements. The statements can't be totally free. >> >> Here's a simple test: what happens if the statement proves wrong? The >> answer to that will define the system far more than how the units are >> moved around. >> >> iang >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >> > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > >
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
