Hollywood Hackers

[Graham Lally]

Anonymous wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:24 -0700, you wrote:
> 
>>When we approve a file, all the people who approved it already get
>>added to our trust list, thus helping us select files, and we are
>>told that so and so got added to our list of people who recommend
>>good files.  This gives people an incentive to rate files, since
>>rating files gives them the ability to take advantage of other
>>people's ratings.

[...]

> A better approach is for the downloader to create his own trusted list, along the lines of PGP web 
> of trust. Ideal for exactly this application. The downloader can add and subtract from the trusted 
> signer list at will, with no central control. Since one must expect some trusted signers to get 
> busted and move to the dark side under court order, such downloader control is necessary.

One practical method that has been, and still remains popular it seems, is a 
trusted hub approach. DirectConnect, as a more recent example, allows anyone to 
set up a central hub, and then filter the people connecting to it (e.g. by 
amount of files shared, or by personal acquaintance), in a very "localised" 
peer-2-peer group. This is the same tactic adopted by pre-Napster set-ups such 
as IRC channels, et al.

The obvious downside is immediate choice. Obscurity is naturally exaggerated in 
comparison to a completely open network. However, smaller groups tend to 
encourage increased validity of files being offered, especially when only a 
small number of those people are offering it.

This obscurity can be countered in a number of ways - chained networking, in 
that one person can be in many groups and thus has access to a wider range, 
coupled with an anonymous request/barter-driven facility would decrease 
obscurity without losing much of the validity implicit in trusted groups. 
History suggests that even in such fragmented environments, content can travel 
to as many people in as short a time as an open network.

Under this scenario, the opportunities to spread false files are much more 
limited, as their scope from origin would be more contained, probably averaging 
2 or 3 interlinked groups at most.

Not perfect, clearly. But it does seem to be the surviving philosophy.