I certainly agree that there are drawbacks to Credence's approach, as any.
And our papers try to discuss some of them. But I don't think that is what
you meant by "well documented". If you could send me (or the listserv)
some pointers or references, I'd be happy to see them. We are always
interested in potential improvements, weaknesses, or other approaches to
similar problems of trust in p2p networks.
-Kevin
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, coderman wrote:
credence requires explicit user feedback and provides a very one
dimensional view of reputation. the drawbacks to this approach (while
still much better than nothing) are well documented.
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
