[p2p-hackers] Re: Memory and reputation calculation
From: MULLER Guillaume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:33:39 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, Right, I would have cited Dellarocas' papers also because he is the only=20 one I know that worked on this subject. However, IMHO, his claim that size of history doesn't matter is false.=20 He took this conclusion in very a specific domain that is eBay-like=20 market-places with very specific assumption (cf. cited paper). My idea is that size of history DOES matter. Let's imagine a system=20 (even eBay-like) where every agent *knows* that the history is a list of=20 the X last encounters experiences. Then it is easy to see that cheating=20 1/X times is a strategy that pays off (particularly in systems where=20 ratings might be noisy). IMHO, the key point with respect to the history is that others should=20 not be able guess its size. If it has a fixed size, I believe it doesn't=20 matter if (and only if) other can guess its size (and therefore cannot=20 use strategy as described above). However, I'm sorry I didn't have time to make any experimentations, but=20 I'd like to hear if anybody has. (1) You'll never eliminate cheating. (2) Making the size of the history file a secret is probably unworkable. Better to make deletion from the history non-deterministic, so the longer a record has been been in the list the more likely it is to get dropped. A potential cheater would never be certain when the incriminating evidence would be gone. If which records were disreputable was known then their lifetime could be extended. cheers, Tim
RE: Jewish wholy words..
On Thursday 02 December 2004 10:46, Tyler Durden wroye [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Jewish wholy words.. No. Technically speaking, only the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible, written by Moses) are technically scripture...everything else is commentary. Doesn't the commentary have equal if not superior status? Sanhedrin 59a I took the trouble to look up. In fact it says that a non-Jew who studies the Torah deserves death. It also says he is a High Priest and rounds off with a discussion of which animals one may cut living parts from and eat. Whether googling the rabbinical Law qualifies me for the death penalty is unclear. cheers, Tim
Re: cypherpunks-digest V1 #13888
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:39:47 -0700 From: Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies At 04:44 PM 7/24/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: [1] the original phone phreaks were blind, This is a ridiculous statement, and even worse, leaks information about your nym: [young enough to have not been there]. You are thinking of Joe Whistler Joe Egressia (sp?), and the kid form New York whose names escape me at the moment. These two do not even com close to the original phone phreaks were blind. More like at least two of the original batch of phreaks were blind. Cap'n Crunch may have bad teeth, but his eyes were fine the last time I saw him. Who stole the Cap'n's mind? was it the Fedz?? :?) TimB
Re: cypherpunks-digest V1 #13266
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:20:44 + From: Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fact checking .. Australia has mandatory voting. I think that's what you're arguing against I'm arguing against any sort of coercion - whether it's a loss of rights, being stuffed in a prison, or being beaten with a stick. You consider voting in Australia to be mandatory? The punishment is a fine, different from loss of suffrage but not necessarily more serious. I'm not in favor of compulsory voting, but you wont have to pay the small fine unless you're too lazy to think of an excuse. Last time I got off by claiming my foot was too sore to walk to the polling station. In practice it's only compulsory to either apply for an absentee vote or attend a polling station on election day and get your name crossed off a list. You can bin the pieces of paper the official gives you. The effect is that about 70% of voters just turn up and vote the way their party tells them to vote. This number is in secular decline. I think what's needed is a None of the above option on the ballot. If None of the above won a majority then the office would be left vacant. (We actually had this system for student elections at my alma mater) Non-voters obviously aren't sufficiently attracted to any of the candidates to bother voting, so they should be counted as votes for None of the above (but not this part -- they were doing well to get a 10% turn-out for a student election). Pretty soon we'd have no government. cheers, Tim
Re: cypherpunks-digest V1 #13260
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:43:17 + From: Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fact checking Thomas Shaddack (2004-04-28 18:32Z) wrote: What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe. Presidents don't pass laws. Presidential campaigns would be reduced to issues that are mutable (vulnerable?) to executive orders. Individual candidates for federal office can't pass laws either. You want to hold a Senator liable when his compatriots (even if they form the majority) don't support everything your senator supports? Nobody who understands the basics of U.S. government construction could possibly believe that a candidate's promise is a guarantee. It is merely a statement of ideology. What then, consequences for not attempting to effect promises? Who's to judge? You could make giving enforceable promises an option for candidates -- something like If I can't cut taxes in my first term I will eat my hat or ... I'll owe everyone with a voting receipt with my name on it $100. Then there'd be pressure on candidates to boost their credibilty by making enforceable promises instead of empty ones. Secondly you could get around the problems induced by the labyrinthine checks and balances of the US system by tying the liability to measurable behaviors. The president either vetos a certain bill or fails to; a senator or representative either introduces a certain bill or fails to. As long as the bill is specifically identifiable in advance there isn't a great deal of wriggle room. A third alternative is to remove the politiican from the loop. At the same time you vote for candidates, you vote for propositions which become law if approved by a majority of those voting. The problem is who gets to decide what's proposed. Alternatively groups of candidates (e.g. parties) could be able to codify their promises as bills before the election. If a enough candidates who subscribed to the relevant platform get elected, then they're deemed to have voted for the bill already in their official capacity as senator or whatever. cheers, Tim
Fact checking
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:06:50 -0400 From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fact checking How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? Well, imagine if we could buy votes...I'd bet we could scrounge up a few hundred thousand votes for the price of a few vials of crack. Then imagine we 'elect' bin Laden as a Senator or something with these votes. I bet people would start voting after that. If they don't, offer them two vials of crack! More benefits of the vote buying scheme are being discovered daily. Maybe it could be trialled at a local level in the US. You could get it started with one of those proposition thingies you have over there. It shouldn't be difficult - how much would it cost to get someone to sign a petition? cheers, Tim
PlayFair Sarovar
RAH Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:59:45 -0400 From: Bob Jonkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: nettime PlayFair Sarovar That seemed short-lived. Both links to the Playfair project at Sarovar are dead: http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/ and http://playfair.sarovar.org/ The search function doesn't come up with anything either... Has there been any further news on this? http://sarovar.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=474
Re: Vote Market
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:19:49 -0700 From: Major Variola (ret) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Vote Market At 09:25 AM 4/17/04 +1000, Tim Benham wrote: I think all this concern about voter coercion is rather overblown. Maybe we should ban bank statements because people might be coerced into showing them to someone and punished for hiding their money. Receipts might open up opportunities for voter coercion but there are mechanisms for combatting coercion other than coercive anonymity. What is missing in this discussion is mention of the benefits which would flow from making voter anonymity optional. Non-anonymous voting is a necessary precondition for a vote market And that is why this list is still worth reading. Innovative socio-crypto speculation free of inhibition. I'm glad someone liked it. The voting thread seemed mainly about achieving 19th century ideals with 21st century technology. But it seemed to me as coercively non-libertarian to forcibly prevent people from verifiably revealing their vote as it is to do the opposite. Sometimes you don't want to be anonymous. Its interesting to consider what the economic benefits would be to individual voters, and the buyers. The bizmodel. How it varies with 'obedience' to one's vote-employer. Receipts give 100% obedience. No receipts could range from 0% to 100% depending on the population's behavior. In some races, buying 10% obedience in 30% of the population can swing a race. Yes, but the optional obedience model is what we have now, and it's obviously very inefficient. It leads to large amounts of private and common property being squandered in an effort to buy the votes of people who often don't even bother turning up of for work. My plan was to let people sell their vote before the election. I'll leave designing a scheme by which this can be done anonymously online to the lists crypto-mavens. How many issues could a voter play, what kind of money are we talking about? How much to the parties spend on campaigns now? They should be willing to spend more on buying votes, because a bought vote is a much better product. How much they would *have* to spend would depend on the market, but the greater efficiency a vote market would attract more buyers, so it's reasonable to assume that the cost of buying an election would go up. The inertia (as in Men w/ Guns, besides insufficient anonymity / anoncash infrastructure) in getting such a market set up is large :-) Though in one sense, are the price of stock-shares the price of control-votes in guiding a private entity? Except confused by the value of the stock as an asset. If a company pays no dividends and returns no capital to its shareholders, then control's the only source of value for the shares. At least that's what my theory tells me (fair value is net present value of income produced by the asset + value of externalities), but there are shares that trade at nonzero prices which pay no dividends, return no capital, and have control locked up. I've never been able to work this out. Tim B
Vote Market
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:43:57 -0700 From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: voting David Jablon wrote: I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the privacy problem with Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse theirs or throw them away? The privacy, coercion, intimidation, vote selling and election integrity problems begin with giving away a receipt that is linkable to a ballot. It is not relevant to the security problem whether a voter may destroy his receipt, so that some receipts may disappear. What is relevant is that voters may HAVE to keep their receipt or... suffer retaliation... not get paid... lose their jobs... not get a promotion... etc. Also relevant is that voters may WANT to keep their receipts, for the same reasons. I think all this concern about voter coercion is rather overblown. Maybe we should ban bank statements because people might be coerced into showing them to someone and punished for hiding their money. Receipts might open up opportunities for voter coercion but there are mechanisms for combatting coercion other than coercive anonymity. What is missing in this discussion is mention of the benefits which would flow from making voter anonymity optional. Non-anonymous voting is a necessary precondition for a vote market. As I'm sure everyone on this list appreciates, markets work better than elections, and indeed, under a vote market system the negative externalities imposed on other markets by the electoral process would be mitigated. This is because unlike under the current system, under the vote market system the outcome would often be certain well in advance, greatly reducing the impact of political risk on markets. The vote market system would also offer a means for mitigating political risk via transparent market processes rather than the through the current rather slezy practises. There would be social dividends too. The people most likely to sell their vote would be poor people who would benefit from a new and regular source of income. The existence of a vote market would encourage these people, who often feel disenfranchised, to participate in the electoral system, albeit in a venal way. It would also help increase the average intelligence of the vote, because rich people and corporations are generally smarter than poor people. I commend the vote market to the list. cheers, Tim
Liquid Natural
LPG is mostly propane, LNG is mostly methane. Their properties are quite different. cheers, Tim
