At 8:09 PM 5/15/96, Steve Reid wrote:
Another problem with reputations is that people are stuck until they get a good one. A bad rep can always start over. In fact, a person/company can look perfectly nice, but use a different identity for dirty work.
Sure. And they do this today (use cut-outs or subcontractors to limit reputational damage or liability).
Naturally, you'd only trust dealings that involve a "nice" identity.
Not necessarily. Many people play the numbers, implicitly trusting the Mafia to pay off on bets they win. (Many don't think the Mafia has a very "nice" identity, but your mileage may vary.) In fact, nearly all of the alleged problems with anonymous systems, especially the issues of defections, trust, expectation of payoff, etc., have parallels in other "extra-legal" situations. For example, the Mafia and other extra-legal or criminal operations. Do they sometimes defect (welsh)? Sure. Do they sometimes screw over the little guy? Sure. Do people trust them just enough to keep dealing with them voluntarily? Sure. (Before anyone mentions it, there are of course cases where people are forced to deal with criminal gangs nonvoluntarily, such as with shakedowns, hijackings of trucks, etc. But a large fraction of the dealings with the Mafia, Jamaican gangs, Russian mob, etc., are for market reasons, where a market need for drugs, girls, cheap cigarettes, gambling, loans, etc., is being filled by players who are outside the normal legal marketplace.)
Problem is, young people who are just starting out have a no-reputation identity, and would be treated the same as the no-reputation identities that are used for screwing people over.
Sure, newcomers always have it rough. Whether the newcomer is Nancy the Nym, or Eustace T. Collins, III, Esq., just starting out in a law firm, the newcomer has little positive reputation. (It varies, and the degree may mean something, just as Nancy the Nym may have some reputation capital to show.) I mentioned "postive reputation." There is a real cost in throwing out, say, 30 years of accumulated reputation capital, and this will not be done lightly by many. Thus, in a given transaction, a lot may be at stake. (I don't mean for this brief article to be an essay on the many fascinating issues surrounding reputation and reputation capital. Cf. my Cyphernomicon for much more on this topic.)
Reputations could be very hard to create, and very easy to destroy.
As in real life. People can destroy their reputations by being careless. (I disagree with your implied point that the opinions of others can easily destroy a reputation. In real life, it usually takes a lot more than just bad-mouthing. Even in nym-space, the same is apparently true.)
Well-known good reputations would be powerful and fairly hard to destroy, so it's possible that the big reputations might try to crush little reputations in an effort to gain some sort of reputation monopoly. Maybe.
Implausible as a central problem, but all things will likely happen. This happens occasionally in the real world, as when a Big Reputation (e.g., Bill Clinton) belittles and marginalizes a Small Reputation (e.g., Paula Jones). There's a vast amount of stuff to think about with reputations. I applaud Steve for doing some thinking, but I don't think he's yet uncovered anything especially unique or worrisome. As a last point, see especially the role of anonymous escrow agents. A number of years ago the example I usually used was "Ace Escrow--You Slay, We Pay," to illustrate that an anonymous escrow holder (holding untraceable e-cash deposited by the purchaser of a murder contract) could pay off a murderer who presented certain evidence, all without any of the parties having any idea whatsover whom the other parties were. The problem is then one of whether the escrow company will simply pocket the money and not pay off. First, it can be set up (I think) that the e-cash is uncashable by the escrow company...but I'm not sure this is needed. A better solution is to rely on the basic nature of escrow or bonding services: their reputation capital is much more valuable to them than anything to be gained by defecting and burning their clients. Except if they are about to retire anyway...as with the bonded courier who defects to Rio de Janeiro with a bag of diamonds....the trick is to spread the escrow money around to multiple escrow agents, and to rely on "escrow testing services" which periodically ping or test the services.... There are many issues here. I'm not advocating murder markets, just noting that they provide an easy to understand and fairly "pure" example. If it can be done with murders for hire, it can be done with nearly anything. A few years ago, many valuable ideas were contributed in this area by Dave Ross, Phil Salin, Dean Tribble, Hal Finney, and Robin Hanson. You might search for their articles. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
TCM
In fact, nearly all of the alleged problems with anonymous systems, especially the issues of defections, trust, expectation of payoff, etc., have parallels in other "extra-legal" situations. For example, the Mafia and other extra-legal or criminal operations.
ah, and therein lies the rub. why do you hold up the mafia as an example of how cyberspace might work in the future? it's no wonder that people are intimidated by some cpunk ideas. do you really consider the mafia a good example of how you would like "cyberspatial reality" to operate? it seems to me that people developing future infrastructure for cyberspace ought to be more concerned about making mafia-like roles less easy, not more easy. but obviously this is just yammering on my part, because I and others on the list know you better than that. this of course is not the first time you have held up the mafia as a glowing paradigm, and the reason I am now commenting on it. I recall a rather stunning message some time ago in which you talked endearingly (well, as much as it is possible for you to do so) of mafia informants being hunted down through information warfare, and why this was quite fitting because of the way the government uses the same manipulation via witness relocation. (well, not quite like that, but the logic was hard to follow)
Do they sometimes defect (welsh)? Sure. Do they sometimes screw over the little guy? Sure. Do people trust them just enough to keep dealing with them voluntarily? Sure.
not in a civilized society. good g*d, you consider the mafia a model of good business? are you aware of what goes on in Italy and Columbia, and you are becoming a mafia apologist? the basic rule of thumb if you are operating in a mafia-like organization is "only deal with people you can manipulate or rub out without consequence", quite the opposite in legitimate business.
(Before anyone mentions it, there are of course cases where people are forced to deal with criminal gangs nonvoluntarily, such as with shakedowns, hijackings of trucks, etc. But a large fraction of the dealings with the Mafia, Jamaican gangs, Russian mob, etc., are for market reasons, where a market need for drugs, girls, cheap cigarettes, gambling, loans, etc., is being filled by players who are outside the normal legal marketplace.)
an interesting thesis, quite revealing. "the mafia is fulfilling a valid market purpose. the killings & violence are just minor secondary issues." I believe in contrast I would define the mafia exactly the opposite. the violence and terror is the key part of the mafia agenda. the activities they involve themselves in are secondary to promoting the basic agenda of obtaining money in any way possible. how can you portray the mafia as an honorable business? what you will find, I think, is that the "professionalism" that was supposedly a part of the mafia is crumbling into total anarchy. the mafia is undergoing a transformation in which many of their sacred taboos, such as mafia wives not being involved, not killing certain people, etc.-- are dissolving. there is no honor among thieves. of course I highly doubt you will respond to my points, because you will realize your error of revealing too much of your true opinion. best to hide in the woodwork and post a few more bland messages and everyone will forget my blasphemous challenge in a few days beneath the froth.
A number of years ago the example I usually used was "Ace Escrow--You Slay, We Pay," to illustrate that an anonymous escrow holder (holding untraceable e-cash deposited by the purchaser of a murder contract) could pay off a murderer who presented certain evidence, all without any of the parties having any idea whatsover whom the other parties were.
what amazes me about people who tend to have a warped mindset is that they think new technology, such as cyberspace, creates a new morality. suddenly murdering, violence, drug dealing, or whatever are supposedly thrust into some new reality in which old rules no longer apply. you and Jim Bell are unbelievably similar, as much as either of you would hate to admit it. its just a cloak, in my opinion, for trying to evade culpability. the ultimate utopia for some on this list would be a world in which they can be held accountable for absolutely nothing, by absolutely no one. "anarchy" is as good a word as our reality can come close to, although I believe such a reality would be far more sinister than that adjective connotes.
The problem is then one of whether the escrow company will simply pocket the money and not pay off. First, it can be set up (I think) that the e-cash is uncashable by the escrow company...but I'm not sure this is needed. A better solution is to rely on the basic nature of escrow or bonding services: their reputation capital is much more valuable to them than anything to be gained by defecting and burning their clients. Except if they are about to retire anyway...as with the bonded courier who defects to Rio de Janeiro with a bag of diamonds....the trick is to spread the escrow money around to multiple escrow agents, and to rely on "escrow testing services" which periodically ping or test the services....
think about it really hard, TCM. work out those difficult problems associated with trying to kill people and get away with it, using new sexy advances in technology and theory. you have a very good start after years of deep thinking. why, if you can come up with such creative and compelling ideas on DC nets and remailers, surely you can solve this problem. it is a problem that begs for resolution. how many people have yearned for such a capability over the centuries!! maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the most unappreciated and misunderstood. something that has only been a dream to the blighted wretches prior to our glorious new phases of cyberspatial technology, which makes human morality completely obsolete. surely once all these difficult issues can be resolved (and surely they can, with such great minds as RSA or Chaum walking around the planet) there will be some excellent business opportunities for some lucrative ventures and profits. interesting investment possibilities. surely you will keep us informed of any future developments so we can invest wisely as you have done for so long.
There are many issues here. I'm not advocating murder markets, just noting that they provide an easy to understand and fairly "pure" example. If it can be done with murders for hire, it can be done with nearly anything.
right, <wink wink> oh well, thanks for the entertainment. usually you have to go to a theater to get the "chills up the spine" effect. kinda slick one can get it in cyberspace. you're right, this cyberspace stuff has a lot of possibilities.
On Sat, 18 May 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
an interesting thesis, quite revealing. "the mafia is fulfilling a valid market purpose. the killings & violence are just minor secondary issues." I believe in contrast I would define the mafia exactly the opposite. the violence and terror is the key part of the mafia agenda. the activities they involve themselves in are secondary to promoting the basic agenda of obtaining money in any way possible. how can you
Replace "mafia" with government, and "money" with power/control.
what amazes me about people who tend to have a warped mindset is that they think new technology, such as cyberspace, creates a new morality. suddenly murdering, violence, drug dealing, or whatever are supposedly thrust into some new reality in which old rules no longer apply. you and Jim Bell are unbelievably similar, as much as either of you would hate to admit it. its just a cloak, in my opinion, for trying to evade culpability. the ultimate utopia for some on this list would be a world in which they can be held accountable for absolutely nothing, by absolutely no one. "anarchy" is as good a word as our reality can come close to, although I believe such a reality would be far more sinister than that adjective connotes.
Who says a _new_ morality? Maybe it is just a wider expresion of an already extant morality. If you will accept the defination of Murder being "immoral killing", then most people really don't have a problem with killing. They just draw the line between murder and killing in different places. To me, killing is justified in 2 circumstances. 1) If the [man animal]s threat potential exceeds a certain limit (variable) or 2) food/warmth is needed and will be derived from said killing. To kill randomly or indiscrimantely, wether man or animal is Murder (i.e. immoral killing) to me this _does_ include trophy hunting, but not if you utilize the animal for food etc. Where humans are concerned, killing them for food is rarely an issue, but they often present some sort of threat potential. Certain pepole in government approach this threat potential. Thus, to me, killing them isn't immoral, but it could _legally_ (i.e. a different defination) be murder. As far as I am concerned there really is no difference between the government and the mafia. Both use the same threat to accomplish their ends, the Mafia is just more honest about it. Both suck. Out loud. The mafia just tends to be better run, and less invasive personally until you violate their rules.
think about it really hard, TCM. work out those difficult problems associated with trying to kill people and get away with it, using new sexy advances in technology and theory. you
Why do you need new technology? The old stuff works just great. You just need the new stuff to hide you from the feds.
maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the most unappreciated and misunderstood.
Happens all the time.
something that has only been a dream to the blighted wretches prior to our glorious new phases of cyberspatial technology, which makes human morality completely obsolete.
I am getting the impression that this last sentence was a little sarcastic? Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@crash.suba.com
participants (3)
-
snow -
tcmay＠got.net -
Vladimir Z. Nuri