very good p.j ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality
> > > On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 01:56 PM, Wei Dai wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:58PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > >> Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate, > >> and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message. > > > > I guess we would need a distributed public registry of key > > change/revocation messages that guarantees only one such message will be > > posted per key, and any revocation messages not posted to this registry > > would be ignored. > > > > Again, I don't think reputation capital is the best solution to the > > problem that it tries to solve. I'm just trying to defend it against the > > charge that it's a nonsensical idea. I still propose b-money as a better > > alternative. Maybe Tim has found an even better solution, and if so I > > certainly look forward to seeing it. > > I'm writing a response to your long reply to my long article. > > (You hadn't responded to my article for some number of days after it > appeared, which is fine, but that's why I haven't felt pressured to > reply immediately to your reply.) > > I'll try to get it out later today or tomorrow. > > But so there's no suspense, I'm not claiming a better cryptographic > protocol, certainly not involving distributed key registries for nym > reputations. It's that whole approach I'm arguing against. > > Which I think I argued for reasonably well in the long post. If you or > others are not convinced, fine. But I will send off the reply on > specific points later, tonight or tomorrow. > > > > --Tim May > "Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat." --David > Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11 >