Re: Further thoughts on Reputation Capital systems and implementation
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:00:33PM -0500, Sunder wrote: | | Say Tim has a repcap of 600, say Declan has 500, and Sandy has 400. Then | I add +1 * 500/X from Declan's repcap and +1 *400/X to Tim's repcap, so | now my cache of Tim's repcap might jump to 620. Interesting idea. I proposed something very similar in http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/09/msg00313.html Raph demonstrated a bit later that the system could be forced into oscilation and had other problems, although that might have been in person, not on list. Adam -- Imminent death of the list predicted. Film already in the archives, 11/95.
Thanks for the pointer, a very good essay indeed. :) I haven't checked in any meaningful way, but that thread doesn't seem to have any replies from Ralph... Do you recall any details as to what would cause oscillations? Would be interesting to explore this. I expect that having a way to prove collusion by checking who praises whom, etc. would likely avoid such problems. As would I suppose personal observation of current behavior. Say for instance Mr. Measels manages to accumulate quite a large sum of positive repcap, if he spews a bunch of the lame ass CJ knockoff messages, I suspect most people would adjust their cached repcap's of him pretty quickly - At least I would. (CJ did/does write kooky messages, but at least they're funny...) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:00:33PM -0500, Sunder wrote: | | Say Tim has a repcap of 600, say Declan has 500, and Sandy has 400. Then | I add +1 * 500/X from Declan's repcap and +1 *400/X to Tim's repcap, so | now my cache of Tim's repcap might jump to 620.
Interesting idea. I proposed something very similar in http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/09/msg00313.html Raph demonstrated a bit later that the system could be forced into oscilation and had other problems, although that might have been in person, not on list.
Adam
-- Imminent death of the list predicted. Film already in the archives, 11/95.
Raph, not Ralph. The attack involved Alice and Bob giving opposite reputations to Charlie, or Alice and Bob, both of whom you respect, giving very bad reputations to each other. Adam On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:38:53AM -0500, Sunder wrote: | | Thanks for the pointer, a very good essay indeed. :) | | I haven't checked in any meaningful way, but that thread doesn't seem to | have any replies from Ralph... Do you recall any details as to what would | cause oscillations? Would be interesting to explore this. | | I expect that having a way to prove collusion by checking who praises | whom, etc. would likely avoid such problems. As would I suppose personal | observation of current behavior. | | Say for instance Mr. Measels manages to accumulate quite a large sum of | positive repcap, if he spews a bunch of the lame ass CJ knockoff messages, | I suspect most people would adjust their cached repcap's of him pretty | quickly - At least I would. (CJ did/does write kooky messages, but at | least they're funny...) | | | ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- | + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ | \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ | <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ | /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ | + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. | --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ | | On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Adam Shostack wrote: | | > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:00:33PM -0500, Sunder wrote: | > | | > | Say Tim has a repcap of 600, say Declan has 500, and Sandy has 400. Then | > | I add +1 * 500/X from Declan's repcap and +1 *400/X to Tim's repcap, so | > | now my cache of Tim's repcap might jump to 620. | > | > Interesting idea. I proposed something very similar in | > http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/09/msg00313.html Raph | > demonstrated a bit later that the system could be forced into | > oscilation and had other problems, although that might have been in | > person, not on list. | > | > Adam | > | > -- | > Imminent death of the list predicted. Film already in the | > archives, 11/95. | > | > | > | > -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
PS: Raph is the one who later created avogato, with a simpler reputation system. I can't recall if he talks about these schemes in his writings on reputation. Adam On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:38:53AM -0500, Sunder wrote: | | Thanks for the pointer, a very good essay indeed. :) | | I haven't checked in any meaningful way, but that thread doesn't seem to | have any replies from Ralph... Do you recall any details as to what would | cause oscillations? Would be interesting to explore this. | | I expect that having a way to prove collusion by checking who praises | whom, etc. would likely avoid such problems. As would I suppose personal | observation of current behavior. | | Say for instance Mr. Measels manages to accumulate quite a large sum of | positive repcap, if he spews a bunch of the lame ass CJ knockoff messages, | I suspect most people would adjust their cached repcap's of him pretty | quickly - At least I would. (CJ did/does write kooky messages, but at | least they're funny...) | | | ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- | + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ | \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ | <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ | /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ | + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. | --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ | | On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, Adam Shostack wrote: | | > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:00:33PM -0500, Sunder wrote: | > | | > | Say Tim has a repcap of 600, say Declan has 500, and Sandy has 400. Then | > | I add +1 * 500/X from Declan's repcap and +1 *400/X to Tim's repcap, so | > | now my cache of Tim's repcap might jump to 620. | > | > Interesting idea. I proposed something very similar in | > http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/09/msg00313.html Raph | > demonstrated a bit later that the system could be forced into | > oscilation and had other problems, although that might have been in | > person, not on list. | > | > Adam | > | > -- | > Imminent death of the list predicted. Film already in the | > archives, 11/95. | > | > | > | > -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
But that's not a problem as that's a small set of players. You also have several hundred others who give positive or negative repcaps to Alice, Bob, Charlie, Doug, Eddie, Frank, Jenny, etc and to each other. If two people have a bitch out, that's not going to affect them in a positive way. If Alice and Bob give opposite repcaps to Charlie, they'll cancel each other out, so repcaps from Doug, Eddie Frank, Jenny would provide a closer look. It would be a very rare thing to have a 50/50 postive/negative repcap. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Adam Shostack wrote:
Raph, not Ralph.
The attack involved Alice and Bob giving opposite reputations to Charlie, or Alice and Bob, both of whom you respect, giving very bad reputations to each other.
Adam
participants (2)
-
Adam Shostack -
Sunder