Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

[Adam Shostack]

Right.  Now the seller has the cash, and the buyer has nothing.  The
seller has lost only the future value of the nym, which was presumably
accounted for in the price.  The seller loses no "real" reputation,
because the nym can't be tied back to the is-a-person seller.  The
buyer, meanwhile, is out the price of the nym, and must either 
destroy the nym in order to ensure that the seller actually loses all
that value, or accept damaged goods.

So, why would a buyer agree to such a transaction, where he will
remain at the mercy of the seller?

Or is this 'one born every minute' economics?

Adam



On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:43:54PM -0500, Sunder wrote:
| Following which the buyer posts all the signed emails between self and
| seller detailing the fraudulent transaction.
| 
| ----------------------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_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
| 
| On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, 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.
| > 
| > Duh, indeed.
| > 
| > Adam
| > 
| > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Sunder wrote:
| > | Simple.  Once the buyer has the keys she issues an email saying "I'm
| > | changing my keys, here's the new public key" and signs it with the old key
| > | - thus proving that the nym's original message was valid, thus
| > | invalidating the old one.  Duh!
| > | 
| > | 
| > | ----------------------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_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
| > | 
| > | On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Adam Shostack wrote:
| > | 
| > | > On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 12:14:13PM -0800, Wei Dai wrote:
| > | > | On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:53:02PM -0800, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote:
| > | > | > Even this is not a scalar.  Since reputation cannot be bought
| > | > | > and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is
| > | > | > false.
| > | > | 
| > | > | If you own a nym, you can easily sell its reputation. Just give the
| > | > | private key to the buyer.
| > | > 
| > | > How does the buyer ensure that I haven't kept a copy?  If what I'm
| > | > selling is a nym, then without the nym, I am anonymous.  Adding layers 
| > | > of nymity for reputation with partial disclosure seems a complex and
| > | > failure-prone approach. 
| > | > 
| > | > Adam
| > | > 
| > | > -- 
| > | > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
| > | > 					               -Hume
| > 
| > -- 
| > "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
| > 					               -Hume
| > 
| > 
| > 

-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume