There is a lot of interesting stuff in Zooko s post, but I think this is ... I think the fundamental question is: What are the fundamental building blocksMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 14 4:09 PMView SourceThere is a lot of interesting stuff in Zooko's post, but I think this is
the most important:
>I think the fundamental question is: What are the fundamental building
> Intriguingly, all three of these possible future Mnets can in principle
> interoperate with one another...
blocks that a given system needs in order to interop with a friendnet
For interop reasons, is it sufficient to treat a given friendnet as a
virtual supernode, thus allowing individual members to remain anonymous,
or is it necessary to interact with individuals directly?
This is definately a taste of whats to come.
Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks
... Assuming membership overlap in all three lists, is a double-forward (in lieu of crosspost): - implied endorsement (reputation metric) - disclosed collusionMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 14 9:05 PMView SourceLucas wrote:
| A double forward, unusual for this list. On a technical level Friendnets
| are interesting because they are a new kind of decentralized topology.
Assuming membership overlap in all three lists, is a double-forward (in lieu of crosspost):
- implied endorsement (reputation metric)
- disclosed collusion (buzz metric)
- emergent network (taste discovery)
The double-forward / crosspost distinction arises from a specific topology.
| substrate. step 3, observe that if all of the players aren't perfectly
| well-behaved and altruistic, your wonderful design doesn't work, and start
| trying to figure out how to salvage your beautiful design from being destroyed
| by the ugly fact of malicious and/or selfish agents.
Prevent destruction, yes, Prevent damage, no. It's useful to allow malicious agents to self-identify through malicious behavior. Suppression of all opportunity for malice would make it impossible to identify agents that decline such opportunities. It would also delay immune system response to malice.
| best friend. I think that the emergent network designer should focus on the
| human context, both because the human context is where our ultimate goals and
| values are defined, and also because the human context is the best source of a
| uniquely valuable network resource: trust.
There's a useful analogy between trust and information theory, from http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/spki/html/1998/winter/msg00058.html :
'... Trust being "that which is essential to a communication channel but which cannot be transferred from a source to a destination using that channel" ...'
| the universal filestore abstraction and return to step 1, building a
| friendnet-Mnet in which any two computers are allowed to have a relationship
| if and only if their human users already have a similar human relationship.
Humans have relationships in contexts.
Any pair of humans is tied by multiple relationships. Case in point, the crosspost / double-forward distinction.
... This reminds me a lot of two concepts I ve come across. The first is William Gibson s Walled City in the Idoru series. This was a subset of the net whichMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 15 1:32 AMView SourceLucas Gonze <lgonze@...> wrote:
William Gibson's "Walled City" in the Idoru series. This was a subset of
the net which was complete of itself but who's members chose not to
interact with the rest of it. Whenever I've raised this in conversation,
poeple have always thought of it in terms of firewalls (viz the great
firewall of China) but it actually makes more sense as a logical
overlay. Some of the private discussion groups behave like this such as
Howard Rheingold's Brainstorms (or The Well?). There's no need for a
moderation or trust metric system because everyone is there by
invitation and hence has a vested interest in playing cooperatively.
The second concept came from Consume.net and was a protocol for deciding
if a "Guest" should have access to a WiFi community. It's known as the
"cup of tea" protocol. You can't join and use the service until you've
sat down and had a cup of tea with a member or node owner. We seem to be
moving towards similar whitelist approaches in several areas, notably
One last point. I like the feel of trust and relationship algorithms
that are only positive and have no concept of enemy. Where you can mark
someone up as a friend but there's no facility to mark people down.
These also have the advantage that they are easier to implement as side
effects of other behaviour rather than a specific action.
Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond@...
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433