BitLaw - Polycentric Law in Crypto-Space (part 2)

[Al_Kafir]

Lol…you’re crafty.
I gave an individual example and a group example…nice choice.
OK…as with the individual example, reputation is gained and maintained by deed/action/character. It retains it’s anonymity in deed/action by its individual members wearing big smiley Guy Fawkes masks…lol…
…among other more techy means…
Edit:
Just to clarify, the group, (any group behind a cause really) as a group, does not require or want anonymity for its actions – only the individual members do. Anonymous as a group, want it known that Anonymous did something.

[Blindsite2k]

@Al_Kafir

OK…as with the individual example, reputation is gained and maintained by deed/action/character. It retains it’s anonymity in deed/action by its individual members wearing big smiley Guy Fawkes masks…lol… …among other more techy means…

Okay so what you’re saying is they use a symbol or name to represent the character or idea they wish to associate reputation with. But I believe my first proposal was just that: an app to allow people to track and keep a record of reviews, comments and other such reputation based actions associated with a given persona. However the problem here is what if one’s persona is matched with a “real” or other identity? Then one’s whole identity is compromised and one’s dealings are made known. That’s where the whole cryptocurrency thing came in.

@Al_Kafir

Just to clarify, the group, (any group behind a cause really) as a group, does not require or want anonymity for its actions – only the individual members do. Anonymous as a group, want it known that Anonymous did something.

I would differ on this opinion but if this is so does this example of using Anonymous then work to defend the position that one can have anonymity and reputation?

[Al_Kafir]

@Blindsite2k

Okay so what you’re saying is they use a symbol or name to represent the character or idea they wish to associate reputation with.

Well…I didn’t say that, but yes, that is indeed the case. My answer was restricted to the anonymity question you posed - they wear masks to disguise their faces.

@Blindsite2k

I would differ on this opinion

…thought you might… [quote=“Blindsite2k, post:142, topic:4755”]
but if this is so does this example of using Anonymous then work to defend the position that one can have anonymity and reputation?
[/quote]
Well, I think I’ve covered that really. An individual anonymous, “Anonymous” member ( ) performs group actions and gains the reputation the group gains. [quote=“Blindsite2k, post:142, topic:4755”]
But I believe my first proposal was just that: an app to allow people to track and keep a record of reviews,comments and other such reputation based actions associated with a given persona.
[/quote]
Really? I thought that was the “polycentric club rules” thing…
the recent one, was the idea of buying/selling reputation via “Repcoin” and you were arguing the case for this. The alternative siggestion I made did not have personas, and though I have asked why it would eliminate anonymity, of those (more knowledgeable) stating it would - nobody has yet answered though - so I can’t really argue further - I’m lacking the opposing argument and information.really.

Edit:
If “Anonymous”, the group are analogous to “Safe Community”, carrying out/coordinating actions affecting the workings/direction etc of Safe Network/Community, then, “votecoin” or whatever – is the mechanism by which these decisions are made.
The individual members of “Anonymous” are analogous to individual Community members, they retain their anonymity by wearing the “masks” of Safecoin/SafeNet.
OK……so the bit I’m unclear about, is “Why does the proposed Blockchain/Mastercoin voting mechanism “Remove the mask”?
My thinking is that there is no/little connection to SafeNet (nothing that isn’t already known – or any connection there is will dissipate into the mist over time)
I’m further thinking…please comment as not technical:
a) 2 separate Networks are better for security – not worse
b) System can be abandoned if/when better Safe option
c) Can work off the bat via simple voting app (I think).
d) Easy to distribute 1:1 at launch?
e) Better than nothing

My question is, “Why does it matter if the will of the Group/Community is Known?”
If you think about each holder of an amount of coins as “speaking for” those coins/votes – similar to being a constituency, then I don’t see the problem. Everybody ends up with a reducing amount of coins/vote and it becomes more equitable over time. All that is known, is that “Town/wallet voted a certain way……I’m not grasping the problem….lol….

[justin]

The only law that has ever made sense is the universal law of karma HOW KARMA WORKS explained by Hans Wilhelm - YouTube

Take the spiritual law and move it into a programmable set of functions of record keeping using these laws would be utopia ideal world.

Polycentric law is mafia protection racket using ones own wealth to create law seems cruel for the disadvantage, whom going to represent the guy on the street or the the person with disabilities whom has of a 2 year old.
Are we going to just vote by using our wallet when times are good, and when times are bad these people are forgotten.

[janitor]

@justin

Polycentric law is mafia protection racket

Maybe you missed the word “polycentric”, pal.

Nobody asked you to use it, although you apparently support the idea since you have your own self-centered sense of what law should apply to you. But if you want to force your stuff on others, rest assured you’ll get the same welcome as the current lineup of statist thugs.

[justin]

janitor, You are correct because of your own personal experience in you part of the world.
But I do not share the same experiences as you have or even start to even understand your political views.
Do I need your permission to speak about my feelings about polycentric law, all law is just legal fiction made up by man and commercializing is just another step into the gutter, it has no moral value or ethics it is based on cultural consensus of the crowd to impose a man made fiction into crypt-space called bit law is just blaaaah yuk boo !

As I know as anyone you want the law to change all need to create a red flag, one way or another bitcoin was going to have a fallen exchange and a drug scandal to create the view that bitcoin needed to be regulated, and many people where clapping there hands. So there is a bit of bitlaw should be recorded in the block chain… maybe they can work that into factom…

But this is my view point but hay at the end of the day it only piece of rendered code on my screen.
I not really bothered in make believe theories that will never effect my lifetime.

[janitor]

@justin

Do I need your permission to speak about my feelings about polycentric law, all law is just legal fiction made up by man and commercializing is just another step into the gutter, it has no moral value or ethics it is based on cultural consensus of the crowd to impose a man made fiction into crypt-space called bit law is just blaaaah yuk boo !

Like I said you should have looked up the term polycentric law. Here, from Wikipedia:

Polycentric law is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.

I don’t need to “change” the law, I just need to apply it to my own action where appropriate.

And by definition in polycentric law nothing is or can be “imposed”. You can abide by whichever system you like.
If you don’t like what others use in the cryptocurrency space, make up your own. It’s up to you, not us, to prove that you have a better answer. If your version sucks, no one will want to deal with you. It’s simple.

Your question about “permission” is therefore completely misplaced. In PoW systems (probably in most other systems such as MaidSafe) transactions are permissionless. There’s a very basic framework - similar to basic respect for private property - and the rest is up to the participants and application developers. Read the fine manuals.

[justin]

polycentric law is financial agreement, I pay my union to have better employment conditions and better pay which negotiated with the employer. yes it is non-binding. But if the conditions are not meet the whole union can call for strike action across many sections of the industry.

The common smart phone is another version of polycentric law, to have one you are automatically in agreement, to be tracked and give up you privacy.
If i do not have one because I can not afford one, my option become limited, with friendship circles and employment opportunities.
I can not simply create my own cell phone, As the same I can not create a bitlaw crypto coin.
I can create a website for eCommerce but if i do not use paypal and credit card processor again I am disadvantaged and will make very little income from a bitcoin wallet.

As I have said polycentric makes different classes of people to have advantage over others and disadvantage whom least can afford it.

[janitor]

Okay so now it’s clear that you don’t understand what this all means.
To you to join a union is a manifestation of polycentric law.
Like the ability to join two gyms with different membership fees. Lol.
A mobile phone|network contract is most assuredly not a legal system.

Also, you pay your Union to make it harder for the unemployed to compete with you for work.

Edit: to give you a correct example of polycentric law: two factories next to each other. One allows unionization, pays the minimum wage and uses the USD, while the other bans unions, has no minimum wage and pays in SAFE coin or silver, depending on what the workers prefer.

[Blindsite2k]

@Al_Kafir

Really? I thought that was the “polycentric club rules” thing… the recent one, was the idea of buying/selling reputation via “Repcoin” and you were arguing the case for this. The alternative siggestion I made did not have personas, and though I have asked why it would eliminate anonymity, of those (more knowledgeable) stating it would - nobody has yet answered though - so I can’t really argue further - I’m lacking the opposing argument and information.really.

Here this whole thing was addressed earlier in the thread. I was in fact arguing your position quite a bit.

@Blindsite2k

Just a thought here. Why not have anyone participating in the bitlaw system have their own altcoin for reputation sake. When someone contracts with someone they buy some of that person’s altcoin, that is they invest trust in that person. If that person breaks that trust then the offended party would sell the person’s altcoin thus reducing their declared public trust in the person. The more people buy your “reputation” altcoin while performing various interactions the more declared trust the system has in you. This way if someone wants to contract with another they can compare reputation easily. Why would you contract with someone with no reputation?

[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:71, topic:4755, full:true”]
One should be fully informed about any decision they make be it voting or spending money, that is any exertion of power and/or will. While switching to an anarchic system would change the form of this it would not get rid of the need of staying informed on various issues. Politics and economics will remain. It’s just one will be “voting” with their dollars or taking direct action rather than electing a proxie ruler into office.

@Blindsite2k

So perhaps we also need a third option somewhere that allows people to declare “Trust in what?” as well as “Trust in whom?” So it’s not enough to declare you’re honest. A psychopath can be honest with you. He can be totally honest with you that he’s going to chop your head off, have sex with your corpse and eat your liver for desert while spending your money to buy a new big screen TV. It might be majorly DISTURBING but hey it’s honest. But do you want to invest in the cannibal psychopath just because he’s straight with you or do you want someone that, while is still honest and reputable, has similar moral values and won’t eat your face? Hence the whole “Trust in what?” equation.

I think this would need to be more like a proof of resource equation. Again like how we had people have their own personal altcoins one could have different belief system altcoins. Humantarianism, women’s lib, evironmentalism, anarchy, socialism, activism of various kinds, religious belief systems, you name it, every belief system could have their own coin. And various groups set up various tasks and award their coin for completing them. Think about it like experience. The more experience you have the more you are showing your advocacy in a particular belief system. Now why use a cryptocurrency for all this? Well in order to perform any activism or support any cause you need to spend money right? Banners, flyers, buildings, supplies, loudspeakers, all that bruhaha costs money. So at some point merchants would either accept various “beliefcoins” directly for specific wares or they’d need to be traded in for safecoin AND if a specific beliefcoin was trading at a high value it would be worth more. And basically if people are just buying a belief coin because of it’s value they’re also affiliating themselves with the organization. So you could be the “Cult of Crazy Child Killers” with lots and lots of cash but do people REALLY want to be associated with your group?

Basically what I’m getting to here is that altcoins could start to represent individuals, belief systems and tribes and therefore lines of trust and reputation. The more you “buy into” something, both literally and figuratively, the more you show trust in that system. But to disassociate yourself from that system you simply sell your coin. Of course emotionally and spiritually it’s never quite that simple but once people get used to using the symbolic link then buying or selling coin should help them adjust. Perhaps have a personal setting somewhere to have you automatically buy x amount of coin from y individuals and groups you trust or z timeframe. Or sell for vice versa.

Of course with so many altcoins running around one would need an app to manage all these. It should be noted these altcoins are not primarily used for economic gain. Their primary use would to be establish the value of trust one has in various entities. Also one should have the option to hide or reveal what amounts of what coins one holds similiar to how one keeps some relationships private, some semi private and some public.

@Grizmoblust

Ah I was just rambling. I was thinking something like dungeon and dragons, where one is excel at con, str, wis, intel, or cha.

You could grade a player performance, do a background checks, his work / ethics history, rewards, etc. Isn’t it annoying that if you want do a background check on a person, you have to go through state process, and wait for many days
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:77, topic:4755, full:true”]
But what good is a decentralized reputation system for a background check? I mean you could have one account and be an utter saint and have another account for all your dark backroom deals.

@Grizmoblust

Yeah, so?

Nothing stopping people from creating fake IDs.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:79, topic:4755”]
The point of a background check is to ensure the person you are interacting with is reputable. Moreover if you are inferring there is nothing in the real world stopping one from creating fake IDs that would largely depend on one’s community. If one lives in a city where one is largely anonymous and unknown without an ID then no it would be much easier to do so but in small towns or rural communities where people know you personally and not by your ID that is nearly impossible to do. In short if one can easily create “fake ids” then one’s reputation is not in association with them but with an identification profile. Which again means that it’s of limited security. Just because you check out on one profile doesn’t mean you don’t have another shadier one and because of this does this not negate any security gained from a so called background check? It’s like saying “Your history is clean as far as we know.”

I guess you’re right. Background checks have always been of such limited security. It just seems rather naive to rely on them.

And in that post we also talk a little about honor societies. Moving on.

@janitor

But with anonymity and the inability to independently execute decisions that penalize dishonorable behavior, how would that work?Bitcoin and other crypto is having the same problem, although it’s slightly different there because they have multisig and other things that slightly improve the situation.

@Blindsite2k

With anonymity what honour have you to lose? The whole thing hinges on reputation and relationship building. You don’t get that by popping in, performing a single interaction and disappearing back into the void. So think about honour in terms of gaining wealth. If you are totally anonymous yes you can do whatever but you are also poorer than a pauper in terms of reputation. Say you wanted to filter out excessive anon attacks on a forum or something. Yes there will be newbies who JUST made their SAFE account and might just find your forum the next day or something but real people would post on the forum, like posts, send messages and generally interact with people, thereby generating reputation and honor one way or another. Someone who just made an account to spam would not do that, post a single message and disapear. Ergo you could either set up the entire forum to only allow people to post who have otherwise aquired a minimum of reputation or set up some kind of temporary post area where newbies can post which gets cleaned out every so often. That way you only have to clean one board instead of the entire forum. Or set it so that the posts of “newbies” only last like 10 days or something. However you want to set it up. Point is low or no reputation acts as a filter. “I don’t know you so I’m not giving you any bisuits. Go sleep in the hayloft.” as opposed to “Oh hey George! 'Sup? C’mon in and have a beer.”
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:82, topic:4755, full:true”]
If you had a store or something it would work the same way. If a new user had no reputation then you might only let them buy lower valued items because they’re lower risk of you being scammed/stolen from or otherwise ripped off. If he’s well established as a reputable buyer and seller of goods on the other hand you can trade with him with confidence that he’ll honor deals and pay what’s owed.

In short there would need to be a record keeping app of some kind. Something that recorded one’s reputation with others. Goods and services paid for, people’s impressions, one’s affilitations if one chose to share those, all that kind of thing, you know a reputation system.

@janitor

You’re saying reputation and anonymity aren’t conflicting goals. Are there any successful examples of that that you can name?

How much in $ would you agree to lend to the 5th most reputable member of this forum?

It’s easy to sell something even to a thief if the payment is escrowed.Tell me how that works with buying from and lending money to anonymous users from distant lands.

@Blindsite2k

How much in $ would you agree to lend to the 5th most reputable member of this forum?

This is a highly subjective question since it leaves out information like:

Have I gotten to know him personally?

Is he in good standing with other members of the community?

What does he plan to use the money for?

Does he have a good history of utilizing money for other projects?

How much disposable income do I have to spend on such an act?

See what I mean? Just throwing a dollar value out there and comparing it to a reputation place value isn’t an accurate assessment as it doesn’t account for all the variables.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:85, topic:4755, full:true”]
I had said it’s very hard to combine reputation with anonymity, it seems you had said the same (earlier, I misread that sentence).

Of course it can’t work well across the board with anonymity (which prevents you from knowing answers to all those questions).

That’s why I am curious to see how SAFE farmer reputation will matter to farmers in terms of keeping the churn at a bearable rate.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:86, topic:4755”]
I guess that depends on what you mean by anonymity. I don’t need to know your name, gender, address, phone number or any other such information in order to know your reputation in a particular buying community. If you buys somewhere or sell somewhere and have a decent reputation doing so then your name doesn’t really matter. It’s how you treat people that matters. Do I know you? Do I know you to be trustworthy? Again I don’t need to know your name or info but I do need to know if you are reliable, honest, preferably well mannered and have aligning values. Can I trust you to maintain my privacy? What kind of protocols or apps will we use if any? All these little questions. Details. One doesn’t need to compromise anonymity to generate trust but one does need to build a relationship and reputation.

Imagine it like this. Anonymity is like this huge suit of armor or cloak you wear when you walk into town. You could do all your dealings while wearing that suit and no one could know who you are under it but they would get a feel for you by what you do and how you act. So in essence you would build a character or persona for yourself to act as proxie for your identity. And that character is what people would place trust and reputation in.

@janitor

If it was so simple, there would be a functioning reputation system that preserves anonymity. There are none.

It’s how you treat people that matters.

What treatment? You sell or lend, I buy or borrow. Either I pay on time or not.

Can I trust you to maintain my privacy?

Of course not. If you could, you wouldn’t ask the question. I have nothing at stake and I’m anonymous. How could you trust me? Because I said I like Tesla cars, small fury animals and liked 7 of your posts?

The armor example in my context: in the virtual world I can marshal a small cloaked army of 1000 and instruct them to trade with each other. Thousands of transactions every day, no deadbeats, great reputation. If the market where they operate is small (say, 2000 participants), all they need to become reputable is just 1 unit of money ($1, for example). Then one day they all disappear with unpaid debts.

There’s a reason that there is no functioning reputation system for anonymous participants.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:88, topic:4755”]
What treatment? You sell or lend, I buy or borrow. Either I pay on time or not.

You must have horrible customer relations skills if you assume that’s all it takes to run a business. Even on amazon or ebay they have a reputation system going where customers can review products and the good sellers REPLY to those comments. Same with Google Play for that matter. And how do I know if you pay on time or not? You develop reputation with real people.

The armor example in my context: in the virtual world I can marshal a small cloaked army of 1000 and instruct them to trade with each other. Thousands of transactions every day, no deadbeats, great reputation. If the market where they operate is small (say, 2000 participants), all they need to become reputable is just 1 unit of money ($1, for example). Then one day they all disappear with unpaid debts.

No you can’t because bots can’t develop relationships with people. As you point out one’s sales ratio alone doesn’t mean anything. It’s only when you combine it with comments from real live human beings and conversations back and forth that it may or may not mean anything. Also as you point out the amount traded matters. So if it’s just 1,000 transactions of $1 with no comments on quality or questions about stock or anything it’s likely to be just a bunch of bots, ie a scam and not a reputable vendor. I tend to value product reviews and comments more than the manufacter’s propaganda. No reviews = faster passover while scanning through products. Imagine the process in your example. No comments, no reviews, no conversations, no relationships, hinky stats, it smells like an automated system.

Of course not. If you could, you wouldn’t ask the question. I have nothing at stake and I’m anonymous. How could you trust me? Because I said I like Tesla cars, small fury animals and liked 7 of your posts?

Okay why do you feel like a real life person can be trusted but an anonymous user cannot?

You can meet a real life person and not know anything about them but their name, and names can be falsified. So you walk up to some vendor on the street or something and know nothing about them. Why wouldn’t they rip you off? Because it’s illegal? There you are implying reputation amongst a community and negetive feedback. “Hey that guy did something bad. Stop him! Expel him!” But an anonymous user can still be part of a community and fear expusion from that community and therefore have something to lose. That same anonymous user can also fear reputation loss among that community as a result of bad behaviour. So what ensures good behaviour is adherance to a community moral code of coduct and/or honor, in short a communal moral code. When one breaks with this code one risks expulsion from the group and risks isolation or the need to find a new group. You can’t trade in isolation.

@chadrickm

@Blindsite2k is correct. Every profile and it’s reputation has a context. Reputation isn’t generic. Credit Rating could be built up by someone’s district profile. The person behind that particular profile might be the worst evil that ever existed but they are good for a loan. (I really want to bring up the Lannisters here but that’s not going to help)

@chadrickm

They are not conflicting if reputation isn’t free and you’re only concerned with the specific context. Meaning I start with nothing and build my credit rating with a specific profile. When you’re loaning money, you might only care about the credit rating profile if your only interest is interest.

@chadrickm

Another way to do it perhaps:With smart contracts anonymity can be preserved completely I think. A system could be built were you didn’t need to know who you are doing business with at all. To enter into my contract you only have to have a specific number of past contracts you were good on (specific tokens). Anyone who was good on those contracts is fine with me. Once the contract is excited each side receives tokens because they completed it successfully. The next level of contact might require the account holds more tokens to enter into it…
[/quote][quote=“chadrickm, post:90, topic:4755, full:true”]
With a contract/token system you might always run the risk of someone building up tokens so they could do a really high level contact and then not fulfilling that last one. A form of pump and dump. Not sure how to get around that.

@Blindsite2k

If you are selling woolen socks and I send you a pm about where the wool was made and if it was shorn from sheep living a good life or from sheep in some horrid factory farm to which you give no reply that is not good for your business. If you want to sell me a product and I want to ask if there is a return policy or warrenty and again you do not reply promptly that again is not good for your business. There is more to trade than just buying and selling.

@Blindsite2k

Also keep in mind that the whole polycentric law thing doesn’t just involve commerce but all human interaction so it needs to be flexible enough for general human interactions. Which is why reputation in general comes into play. It’s not just a tit for tat thing and direct exchange of goods. People don’t really interact with each other in terms of contracts.

@janitor

You must have horrible customer relations skills if you assume that’s all it takes to run a business. Even on amazon or ebay they have a reputation system going where customers can review products and the good sellers REPLY to those comments.

Gee you sound like Peter Drucker is hiding behind your alias. I wonder if you ever owned a business.

You develop reputation with real people.

Yes, and not with anonymous SAFE addresses. How can you not understand that? You said it yourself:

But what good is a decentralized reputation system for a background check? I mean you could have one account and be an utter saint and have another account for all your dark backroom deals.

What are you trying to achieve arguing against your own (earlier) statement using a centralized example (Amazon) above?

With a contract/token system you might always run the risk of someone building up tokens so they could do a really high level contact and then not fulfilling that last one. A form of pump and dump. Not sure how to get around that.

Thanks for making this example. That’s not P&D but you could say it’s similar - it’s called “Long Con” and I wanted to mention it earlier but didn’t because Blindsite2k is still struggling with very basic concepts and contradicting himself from one comment to another.

Not all business arrangements and interactions are strictly contractual. There’s much to business and developing reputation that goes on before the actual sale and after.

No. Every exchange is a contract.

When I buy Coca Cola from a street vendor, what freaking reputation do I need to impress him to sell me a can of Coke? And how long do I need to build that “relationship” before I can quench my thirst? Would 17 hours be enough? That’s why we have contracts: so that I don’t need to give a crap about his circumstances and he about mine.

Every exchange is a contract. Not every exchange requires reputation or relationship.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:96, topic:4755”]
My point is not that repution is not important but rather it’s no good to verify one as an entire entity. A background check supposes that one’s entire history can be recorded, that it’s a centralized file as it were. A reputation persona would only be one persona. This would need to be explicitly understood. So that verifying the reputation of one persona could not necesarily insure the moral or ethical veracity of another persona. In short a reputation check of a persona is not comparible to a background check, unless one is suggesting that one’s “real life” that one is doing a background check on is merely just a persona that one develops reputation on. But generally the idea people have about background checks is that if one checks out they can trust them across the board.

Take for instance developing a reputation within a trading community and then making an assumption that person was honest and trying to date them. They are honest in their business dealings because it is profitable for them to do so but they could be a complete liar in personal relationships, or worse a raping murderer serial killer. So there would need to be reputation built in two separate contexts.

To get back to the can of coke example you had earlier. The vendor needs reputaion just to get you to buy the can of coke in the first place. What if he’s charging $2 for a can of sewage water? If he’s getting his product from a supplier of some kind then he needs reputation with his supplier, after all he’s selling their product and affecting THEIR reputation and THEIR profits.

Even when one buys something from a vending machine one trusts the stock is not tainted for horribly expired. One trusts the machine is in working order. One trusts that the food manufacter is not producing something that will kill them (for the most part considering most of the stuff you get out of vending machines is complety unhealthy). And so they are contracting with someone (manufacters, maintainance crews, health inspectors, and so on) they have developed or are extending trust towards.

@janitor

But why would you be stupid enough to contract with someone you do not trust!

Because there’s almost nothing at stake.If I’m buying a can of Coke I am risking $1. The seller could sell cyanide but they’d probably get caught quickly and go to jail.

Also, what I was pointing out is that when I say how much for a can of Coke, and when you said $1, when I then said okay the contract existed. You made an offer and Inaccepted it.There is no need, and it’s impractical too, to bring lawyers or the government into the whole thing. We have the product, price, payment terms, delivery schedule. The whole contract, without signing anything. The both parties can be illiterate, in fact, and they would still have concluded a completely valid contract.

If he doesn’t give a crap about your circumstances or you about his then what prevents him from killing you while he’s selling you something just for kicks?

Not everything requires police and private armies. Most people are reasonable and good. When there is little at stake or the incentives are right, people do the right thing. By cheating someone for $1, with Bitcoin you “taint” you address. Of course it costs nothing to create a new one, but if (say) I have a market where reputation belongs to addresses who’ve traded honestly and successfully then some people will get cheated but soon after that those who haven’t will have a large market share as they will have completed 1, 5, 47 successful trades.They can still cheat by making one big trade and running away with $100 worth of payment, but for small trades it’s cheaper to take a risk or even keep buying on Amazon or eBay, than to lawyer up.

One of Amazon’s own products is a trusty marketplace, by the way: they control the veracity of reviews, pervent cheating, stop fake products, handle returns, etc. By eliminating Amazon you don’t just eliminate the “middleman” but also trust. For some products and services that matters, for others not. You can have multisig in place of Bitcoin, but who is the third party that takes Amazon’s place? Someone almost certainly less trustworthy than Amazon. And if he or she is also anonymous, it becomes pretty hard to compare Amazon with the Wild West of anonymous P2P (which I like, but also know it’s no Amazon or eBay).

[Blindsite2k]

@Blindsite2k

Because there’s almost nothing at stake.If I’m buying a can of Coke I am risking $1. The seller could sell cyanide but they’d probably get caught quickly and go to jail.

How? How would they get caught if they have nothing at stake? The whole concept of accountability and “getting caught” is based on reputation. If there is no reputation there is no “getting caught.” No reputation = no law = no jail. Also what’s at stake is not only your money but also your health and your life if food is involved. Dude, seriously, make some connections.

Also, what I was pointing out is that when I say how much for a can of Coke, and when you said $1, when I then said okay the contract existed. You made an offer and Inaccepted it.There is no need, and it’s impractical too, to bring lawyers or the government into the whole thing.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself as you just started this post by saying that if someone sold cynanide in a can of “coke” and killed their customer that they’d go to jail. Isn’t that involving lawyers and government?

We have the product, price, payment terms, delivery schedule. The whole contract, without signing anything. The both parties can be illiterate, in fact, and they would still have concluded a completely valid contract.

True it’s a valid contract but that doesn’t make it a SAFE contract to participate in. It doesn’t insure that either party is reputable. You can partipate in a parfectly valid contract with a con artist and get sold a rubber duck for a grand when you thought you were going to get a duck made of gold. The contract could state “One golden duck for $1,000” it doesn’t have to state the duck is made of gold bullion, it just has to be gold, as in it could be just gold paint. Or you could buy dog food made with sawdust. It again is a perfectly valid contract but the seller isn’t producing good quality product. A valid contract doesn’t equate to security or good products.

Not everything requires police and private armies. Most people are reasonable and good. When there is little at stake or the incentives are right, people do the right thing.

Did I say everything requires police and armies? No. But most human interactions operate on the basis of reputation and communities of various kinds. People do the “right thing” when they feel a sense of attatchment or community. But they can be damn well inhuman when it comes to someone they do not feel a sense of attachment towards. Don’t believe me? The “right” and most logical thing would be to build the homeless homes. But what do people do instead? Ignore them and treat them like vermin. All over the world there are debates going on about letting Syrian refuges into “the country” be it Canada, the U.S., the UK, Russia or wherever. Now you can debate the economics of it but really it comes down to “I want to help my tribe before I help your tribe.” People are willing to let other human beings starve and FREEZE to death as a matter of course because of tribalism and attachment. Yes it can be argued that most human beings are good and will do the “right thing” but does the “right thing” include the other party at the other end of the “contract” or not. Is the person you are contracting with part of your tribe or is he the guy left to freeze to death.

By cheating someone for $1, with Bitcoin you “taint” you address. Of course it costs nothing to create a new one, but if (say) I have a market where reputation belongs to addresses who’ve traded honestly and successfully then some people will get cheated but soon after that those who haven’t will have a large market share as they will have completed 1, 5, 47 successful trades.

But this is all reputation! You started by saying that you don’t need reputation but then defend your position by citing a reputation system? If you can “taint” your address then you have just developed a reputation system. You are making my case for me.

They can still cheat by making one big trade and running away with $100 worth of payment, but for small trades it’s cheaper to take a risk or even keep buying on Amazon or eBay, than to lawyer up.

Yes but who would agree to one big trade if the person you are trading with has not developed the reputation to prove that they won’t run off with the dough? Again why contract with someone you do not trust? It’s stupid.

One of Amazon’s own products is a trusty marketplace, by the way: they control the veracity of reviews, pervent cheating, stop fake products, handle returns, etc. By eliminating Amazon you don’t just eliminate the “middleman” but also trust. For some products and services that matters, for others not. You can have multisig in place of Bitcoin, but who is the third party that takes Amazon’s place? Someone almost certainly less trustworthy than Amazon. And if he or she is also anonymou

Why does it have to be one person? Why couldn’t it be a decentralized system and set of people. For instance on the darknet if someone wants to buy illegal drugs or something they have goods held in escrow by a third party, the money too is also held in escrow, that way if either party doesn’t send their stuff they garner bad reputation and the defendant can get his goods or money back. A similar situation could be devised for checking the veracity of products. Products could be sent to a third party, or an anonymous inspector hired by the system, could order a random sample of the merchandise for testing. The tests are performed and the data is sent back to the network. If it’s good the vendor gains possitive rep and prospers, if it’s not good then the vendor loses rep and business. Either way the network prospers. A return could be handled in a similar fashion to an order except in reverse. Reviews could in themselves be a way to gain or lose reputation. If you give an accurate review you gain reputation, if you give an inaccurate review you lose reputation.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:99, topic:4755”]
How? How would they get caught if they have nothing at stake? The whole concept of accountability and “getting caught” is based on reputation. If there is no reputation there is no “getting caught.”

The Coke example was for a real life scenario in which nobody uses written contracts. Have you every had a formal contract to buy a drink? No. In the virtual world, of course they have nothing at stake. That’s why it’s different and that’s why I’ve been telling you with anonymity no one has managed to build a working reputation system.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself as you just started this post by saying that if someone sold cynanide in a can of “coke” and killed their customer that they’d go to jail. Isn’t that involving lawyers and government?

I can authorize a person or multi-sig group to execute justice based on their opinion through a majority vote (Dead man's switch - Wikipedia). Of course that’s the last resort in a society where justice doesn’t work, but I wouldn’t have to use the government (or lawyers).

A similar situation could be devised for checking the veracity of products.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.Name a functional reputation system that works with anonymity or admit there’s none. That’s all I’m trying to explain to you. Instead you’re making a mix of various real world (= doesn’t apply) or hypothetical (= works in theory) examples. If it any of that applied to crypto, we’d have a working system and we don’t. Admit it.

Maybe a workable system will be found few years from now, but at this moment there’s no solution for anonymous reputation, so why pretend otherwise?

Edit: see Andreas speaking against reputation and for anonymity. This just came out so I didn’t notice it until just now and I’m not claiming he says the same thing as I do, but the key point is he’s against reputation and identity (and your “relationship building”), and for anonymity.

See Andreas video in this post.

@Blindsite2k

In the virtual world, of course they have nothing at stake. That’s why it’s different and that’s why I’ve been telling you with anonymity no one has managed to build a working reputation system.

But they have. They do it on the dark net all the time that’s why it’s safer to buy drugs over tor than it is on the street. Because there IS a reputation system in place.

Also you might consider giving this a read.

Inside the dark corners of the online drug trade | WIRED UK

I can authorize a person or multi-sig group to execute justice based on their opinion through a majority vote (Dead man's switch - Wikipedia). Of course that’s the last resort in a society where justice doesn’t work, but I wouldn’t have to use the government (or lawyers).

True you could authorize an asssassin to kill your target. But that wouldn’t bring you back from the dead and you would still need to be able to supply said assassin with the target and since the target is anonymous you’re kind of up the creek.

Name a functional reputation system that works with anonymity or admit there’s none. That’s all I’m trying to explain to you. Instead you’re making a mix of various real world (= doesn’t apply) or hypothetical (= works in theory) examples. If it any of that applied to crypto, we’d have a working system and we don’t. Admit it.

Have you watched this yet?

In short he outlines how the darknet works and more relavent to this conversation the way reputation systems work on the darknet. How do you in fact ensure security, gain reputation and prevent scams while maintaining anonymity (or at least the psudoanonymity tor and bitcoin provide).

I have in fact named a reputation system that works but you have chosen to ignore me. We know that there are reputation systems that work because we know there are flourishing markets for illegal merchandise on the dark net. If there were no reputation systems in place the markets would not flourish.

@Blindsite2k

Also you might consider giving this a read.

Inside the dark corners of the online drug trade | WIRED UK
[/quote][quote=“anon81773980, post:102, topic:4755”]
with anonymity no one has managed to build a working reputation system.

Cough Silk Road Cough

@Blindsite2k

I believe I read this quote in a cybersecurity text somewhere and I think I might be paraphrasing here slightly but “If your system is not being used by terrorists, drug dealers and pedophiles then it is not secure.” Whatever you might think about illegal drugs Silk Road did prove one thing: Anonymous reputation systems are possible. More than that it proved that deregulating the drug trade can have very beneficial effects for the customers. A similar effect I predict would be for any market of illicit merchandise.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:104, topic:4755”]
Cough Silk Road Cough

Cough what? It was a centralized site. That argument was already provided and busted.

One of Amazon’s own products is a trusty marketplace, by the way: they control the veracity of reviews, pervent cheating, stop fake products, handle returns, etc.

Whatever you might think about illegal drugs Silk Road did prove one thing: Anonymous reputation systems are possible.

See above.

More than that it proved that deregulating the drug trade can have very beneficial effects for the customers. A similar effect I predict would be for any market of illicit merchandise.

Now you’re going off-topic. I am all for getting the state thugs out of the economy (including trade and currency).

“If your system is not being used by terrorists, drug dealers and pedophiles then it is not secure.”

+1 (herb)
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:105, topic:4755”]
Yes but since there has never been a decentralized internet before there isn’t much archatecture to test a truly decentralized system on now is there? What we’re trying to do here is design a system that would work logically and one could program and THEN test, hopefully, when maidsafe actually launches. Perhaps you missed the original point of the whole bitlaw thread? We are not trying to prove a decentralized reputation system based on a decentralized internet can work when there has never yet existed a decentralized internet. For the love of toast man be reasonable.

@janitor

Once again, it was about a real world situation, where one dies from that Coke and assuming you left some coins with your lawyer that should be enough to conduct an investigation and execute instructions in the will (e.g. sue the Coke seller in the local private court, or perform other actions, such as broadcast results of the investigation).In these examples it increases the cost of criminal behavior so it serves as a deterrent and potentially a means to restitution (to your family).

We are not trying to prove a decentralized reputation system based on a decentralized internet can work when there has never yet existed a decentralized internet. For the love of toast man be reasonable.

I didn’t challenge that. I challenged the ability and need to create a decentralized reputation system with anonymous participants.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:107, topic:4755”]
How? How can you legally prosecute an anonymous individual? True an investigation might crack one’s security but that would just lead to tighter security for both app developers and bad actors. Ultimately you are pitting the security of the seller against the investigative powers of the buyer’s champion as a means of creating a deterrent. And in the case of app development or a security hole in the network itself this can only work once as once someone is caught this proves to be a security breech for the entire community that must be patched or there must be a work around found. Being a little bit insecure is like being a little bit pregnant. You are betting, sometimes with your life, that your champion can find and exact justice and/or vengence upon your attacker.

I think you highly underestimate what is being made illegal these days. There are parts of the world being gay is still illegal, or having sex with anyone but your wife is illegal. In Japan speaking or publishing anything about Fukashima and the radiation caused thereof lands you 10 years in prison. Then there are the countless whistleblowers all over the world. Then there are “terrorists.” Did you know that by some legal definitions just owning more than 7 days worth of food in the states constitutes as being “extremist and terrorist” behavior, same with owning a flashlight, thank you NDAA. In Canada speaking out against the attrocities committed by Israel against Palastine makes one a “terrorist.” Canada’s political parties are very zionist in their leanings. My point is that while everyone likes getting all huffy about suicide bombers or pedophiles or drug dealers at the end of the day if you don’t have a secure system that is secure for EVERYONE, including the pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers, then you also don’t have freedom of expression or the ability to sleep with whomever you want to sleep with or worship (or not) whatever deity you prefer.

This means that for the sake of the security of the entire network any time ANYONE gets arrested while using a SAFE app people will sit up and take notice and try and figure out how it was done and seal the hole. This means that the preverbial investigation route will have limited if nonexistent success in the long term and cannot be counted on in terms of a solution. Which is why contracts are not the end all be all. Reputation is required so that one isn’t left naked and left with the only recourse of heading an investigation which will only tighten what is already supposed to be an airtight system. Of course humans make mistakes. Of course humans can be hacked. But isn’t the whole point of developing apps and smart contracts to limit the exposure of that?

@janitor

How many times do I have to mention that the Coke seller example is a real world example? I’ve repeated this like 3 times already?

A similar example (say, someone says he’ll do a micro-job for 10K Satoshi, I pay him in advance, and he does a crappy job) simply does not lend to pursuing on the Web. You get swindled and lose 0.001 BTC, so what? Are you going to spend 5 BTC paying forensic investigators to ID and sue the individual in Peru? No, you’ll move on.That’s what Andreas said in the video too - in P2P cryptolending, default rate may be 10%, and in the real world it may be 7%. If your 1 BTC is spread over 50K borrowers, you don’t care that 10% will fail in a given year as long as the rest pay a 12% yearly interest rate.Why would I care about each individual micro-borrower’s “reputation” or seek to establish a “relationship” with him? Of course their reputation is worse than the average in the real world, otherwise they wouldn’t be micro-borrowing on a P2P network.

I think you highly underestimate what is being made illegal these days.

No i don’t. Which is why I think (pseudo)anonymity is more important than reputation, and in a system where things have to be prioritized, I’d choose anonymity, whereas you argue for reputation and relationships. Precisely because everything is becoming illegal, you don’t want to know the other party, or be able to track their history (because that means others can do the same to you).

Reputation is required so that one isn’t left naked and left with the only recourse of heading an investigation which will only tighten what is already supposed to be an airtight system.

Why would a person in the US want to have a good reputation for providing good quality raw milk? It’d be crazy. And it’s not like your counterparty’s reputation gives you any recourse in case you get cheated.Escrow, multisig and smart contracts can help somewhat mitigate the problem, but even in case of escrow and 2-3 multisig you need to trust the third guy. Smart Contracts could be trustless, but won’t work for situations that deal with real life (i.e. was raw milk actually delivered and was it really raw milk or just white colored water?).

I’ve nothing against reputation systems and I don’t claim they aren’t possible. The fact is, none exist and if they do they may be both a liability and an asset to those who use them. Anonymity is a clear priority IMO. But if you disagree, fine.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:109, topic:4755”]
If the coke example is not analogous to the web and p2p system then why use it as a metaphor?

If you’re saying that a reputation system isn’t needed because people will just write off small enough financial losses I would also remind you that the value of money is relative. A “small” financial loss to one can be a costly one to another. Also at what point does the cost of said losses become to great?

No you’re not going to sue some buyer on the web but you won’t buy from them again. Hence the value of reputation.

@Blindsite2k

This is where I think you misunderstand me. I’m not arguing to prioritize reputation over anonymity. If your reputation system compromises your anonymity and security then both the reputation and security systems are flawed. One should be able to preserve their anonymity while gaining or losing reputation. The anonymity is ascribed to a fiction, a character. True there is a compromise in anonymity in that one’s patterns of behaviour can be watched via one’s reputation gains and losses or one’s linguistics. However this seems to be the cost of operating in a social environment. One could mask one’s linguistics by hiring a copywriter and having someone write one’s advertising and marketing for them but that creates dependency in one’s business. And it doesn’t do anything at all for one’s personal life.

@Blindsite2k

It doesn’t matter if they can track your activity so long as they can’t link your psudonym to your real identity or any of your other aliases. Keeping things compartmentlized is the key. On the internet that’s pretty much impossible really but on SAFE it’s theoretically possible. Who cares if the government know that user1xJ9 sells heroine with great efficiency and have a line graph that spans several decades. They have no idea who he is and therefore can’t arrest him. But I see your point. The less people know the better. So why not turn reputation into a cryptocurrency? You wouldn’t need to tell people how much you had. You’d just need to have it in order to spend it.

Trust with various people could be viewed as debt or their willingness to allow you to borrow from them. In short it would be a system of favors, in terms of cryptocurrency it would be financial favors, which in turn would translate into other kinds of exercises of power.

Say you performed a successful transaction with someone. They perform well and at the end of it all you say “I like you!” So you give them x amount of reputation coins and/or reputation credit. If you did a bad job and they decided “Hey I don’t like you…” then you’d gain debt with them and owe them coins and/or have reputation coins automatically deducted from your account. At no point does anyone else besides you or them need to know the details of any of this. You could even give them specific organization reputation coins that identify gaining reputation with a specific group. Those might be of more or less worth for obvious security and spending reasons. Now if you wanted to get a job for instance they could place a prerequisite on it saying you needed x amount of reputation coins to get this job.

One could also take these coins and trade them for other kinds of currency. It is not lost on me how one might try to buy their reputation as opposed to earning it, or sell it in fact, but that kind of thing goes on all the time when people trade money for doing questionable activities. The maintainance or lack thereof of integrity is not a new thing. So much in the same way one could buy and sell currency and still maintain one’s anonymity one could also buy, sell, and exchange reputation.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:110, topic:4755”]
The example was meant to compare risk of transactions on the Web and in real life. Yes, some people need to work a lot for $1, so they would attach different perceived value to a transaction compared to a well off person.

@janitor

In my mind a working reputation system designed to be non-anonymous isn’t flawed, but if there was a reputation system for anonymous participants that can’t deliver, I would call it flawed too. If you look at any current approach, no reputation project is decentralized and anonymous. I suspect it will stay that way for many years.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:110, topic:4755”]
Maybe it’s possible. I hope someone makes it work. But here’s why I think it can’t work: * Usually there’s just one issuer or tightly knit group of issuers of a currency. They start off with an unearned ton of reputation, while everyone else has to earn it.* What you mentioned - if it’s a currency, it’s trade-able, so “farming” in the negative sense is possible. I can buy “REP” coins for 0.05 BTC each or whatever from people who don’t need it (e.g. they only buy from the Web, pay before delivery or F2F, and don’t sell anything).

@janitor

But what would 1 REP in that case (trade-able reputation) stand for? It’d mean "this person had (or “has borrowed and is indebted for” !) 0.05 BTC before they bought 1 REP they hold now."Just like you wouldn’t lend 1 BTC to a person whose address contains 0.05 BTC, you wouldn’t trust them if they had 1 REP.

I don’t know a lot about decentralized reputation systems but I often read about them. I don’t know whether any other participants on this thread are experts, but I don’t think any of us will come up with a revolutionary idea here. If a breakthrough happens, it will happen in one of specialized reputation projects that are or will be being worked on, and the SAFE network will use its API. Even if there was a decentralized anonymous reputation expert here, I wouldn’t want to use 2 or 3 systems, but one that can work with Tor, I2P, SAFE and WWW.

@Blindsite2k

Precisely that’s what it would mean. Trust would become a function of debt and credit, or to put it another way a measurable form of trading favors and obligations honored and owed.
[/quote][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:111, topic:4755”]
You either pay for your reputation in time, labour, contributions or cash, If you want to put capital up and buy and sell favors that way it’s the same as spending time gaining a skill and performing a service for someone who then pays you in cash and rewards you in reputation, after which you go out and buy additional products and services and earn more reputation. If your goal is simply to purchase reputation and you have enough raw capital then you’re paying either way, either in time or money. Now do you personally deserve that reputation? Maybe, maybe not BUT if you act badly then all those reputation coins you just bought will go down the drain. So if one acts badly they can pay for their crime to society in raw capital or in time earning back their reputation. Either way it costs you. If there is a great demand for reputation in the form of BTC that’s actually a good thing. Remember as far as the reputation system is concerned we don’t want people trading their reputation for money, as it’s literally selling out your integrity. So a spike in the price of reputation coins only emphasizes the value of what one’s honor is worth.

@janitor

Okay, then. But that’s like PoS - what Andreas spoke against above - the richer would have progressively more “reputation” and get more business (e.g. rich merchant vs. poor merchant), so something could be said about this money = trust = reputation equation here…

@janitor

It is wrong to consider that assets = reputation, I think. That helps create the medieval style aristocracy without those people actually doing anything that’s necessary useful (imagine how we’d do against Wall Street guys if reputation for brokerage or escrow services on an anonymous P2P network was directly derived from the balance on the broker’s address - you’d never make it regardless of how truly reputable or trusted you are). Check the Andreas video, it’s only 5 or so minutes long.

Well, in any case, the field is open for experiments of all sorts. Maybe your ideas are good, I am not an expert, I just wanted to point out how difficult it is. IMO no one here should expect to come up with a breakthrough because it’s not a trivial question. Thousands of people have been working on this for decades now (from eBay to Google and all the startups) and there’s nothing that works (in terms of decentralized & anonymous reputation).

@Blindsite2k

Assets != reputation. Assets are CONVERTABLE into reputation. Just like time is convertable into reputation. Assets = a form of power. There are many different forms of power and one form can be changed into another much like you can change matter into energy. Einstein proved matter = a whole lot of energy. So matter = power and energy = power just in different forms. Likewise assets = power and reputation = power just in different forms. I doubt “Wall Street” or other such centralized systems will be able to function on the SAFE network. Remember how safecoin works. You can’t exactly hoard safecoin like you can money. If the value of safecoin goes up that’ll be motivation for people to farm AND to sell safecoin for bitcoin but a disincentive to upload. If people don’t upload farmers don’t get GETS and therefore drop off farming and so the price of safecoin comes back down. When the price of safecoin comes down people start uploading again and farmers get more GETs again. And remember with the price of safecoin tied to data that means 1GB = x amount of safecoin = y amount of bitcoin. So theoretically data = safecoin = bitcoin = reputation. And what with everyone being able to farm, transfer money anonymously and not be reliant on the banks I very much doubt Wall Street will stay afloat. The centralized institutions you mentioned are built upon the premise that data is free, that consumers can’t just rent out their hard drive, that communication and monetary transfer is centralized. In short the institutions you mention are built upon centrlaization. You take away that assumption and their entire system comes crashing down. Wall Street is based on the banks. Google is based on centralized servers. Government is based on centralized political power structures. I mean c’mon man look at how people are throwing such a huge stink about Uber. It’s totally blowing their minds. Now imagine what will happen when we decentralize the internet at large!

Imagine for a moment that the Wall Street boys tried to start buying up safecoin or reputation coins. If reputation coins spiked in price then people would stop selling them or maybe they’d sell them more, until of course they needed them to get their jobs done. Remember you still need reputation in order to gain trust from your fellow human beings. But what if Wall Street tried to buy all the safecoin? Then the price of safecoin would go up, uploading would go down, farming would drop off, safecoin value would drop and no matter how much safecoin they bought the value of safecoin would STILL go down until uploads resumed to reward farmers. Moreover bankers are used to people having to pay banking fees and such. Safecoin is free, anonymous and global. Yes Wall Street could buy reputation on the SAFE network but could they FUNCTION on the SAFE network as the SAFE network fundamentally opposes everything the banking cartel represents. Yes politicians could buy reputation on the SAFE network but considering their line of work and how easy it is to deciminate secrets, especially those of public figures, over the SAFE network, they’d be spending huge amounts of funds on “reputation” just to make up for all their blunders. And that’s assuming those not on the SAFE network would accept the reputation coin. Sometimes you just plain have egg on your face. Sure Government could buy repcoins but what with them waging wars and commiting attrocities against the human race at times they’d be burning them like crazy. And if they spent all their money to save face how much is left over for public works for their citizens?

See if it costs money to have a bad reputation then that means being disreputable is not profitable. And businesses want to make profit, they want power. Governments want power. Your average thug wants power. So it’s not good business to earn yourself a bad reputation.

We already live in a medeval style aristocrasy. We have been for awhile now. The atristocrats are called CEOs and politicians.
[/quote][quote=“janitor, post:114, topic:4755”]
You underestimate the power of financial engineering.

[Blindsite2k]

@janitor

They don’t need to buy all of them, they just need to buy until they have more than the SAFEx founder, and from there on more (relative to SAFEx) business will go in their direction, and they’ll be able to buy even more.But considering that the entire capitalization of MAID is equal to one of those guy’s year income, a guy like Madoff could easily become the most reputable person on the SAFE Network and JPMorgan would be more reputable than MaidSafe Inc.

I’ll stop now and watch if another commenter will agree with your approach.

And this is where you hopped in @Al_Kafir So as you can see from this very long line of quotes I was in fact arguing your position there originally. So how would you suggest we consolidate reputation and anonymity?

[janitor]

Did you just deliberately quote almost the entire topic in a single comment? What’s the point?

My conclusions from this topic are as follows:

a) At the moment there is no solution to anonymous decentralized reputation and it won’t be found on this forum
It should be obvious that no one here (except you?) believes there’s something related can be accomplished on the SAFE network in the near term.
b) Statists appear confident in their “solution”, but their eagerness to see polycentric systems fail shows just how confident they are (“State is the best way to organize human affairs and that can be proven any day as long as we manage to successfully exterminate all competing systems”)

[Blindsite2k]

@janitor

Did you just deliberately quote almost the entire topic in a single comment? What’s the point?

I think you underestimate how long this topic actually is. I quoted a specific segment of conversation concerning a specific subject change.

As for what the point was I believe that was obvious. @Al_Kafir is now arguing the same position I was at the start of that segment of conversation to which you rebutted. I AGREE WITH HIM for the most part but the problems you raised @janitor remain. How does one make an anonymous reputation system work? There is little point in me repeating what has already been argued nor getting flak for trying to solve logistical problems. And obviously he hadn’t read that segment of the conversation so I quoted it. That’s the point.

@janitor

a) At the moment there is no solution to anonymous decentralized reputation and it won’t be found on this forum

All hail Janitor the Prophet! Who shall be the first to innovate and cloud your vision and all knowing foresight? Dude there was a time there was no electricity and people would have called you crazy for saying you would one day have a magic box that allowed you to talk to people thousands of miles away. Just because a solution hasn’t been found yet doesn’t mean one does not exist nor is there any reason that solution may not appear on this very forum.

@janitor

It should be obvious that no one here (except you?) believes there’s something related can be accomplished on the SAFE network in the near term.

Um have you not been paying attention to the conversation? @Al_Kafir seems to definitely believe in decentralized anonymous reputation systems as he’s been debating with me recently about the subject in this very thread. Which incidently is why I quoted that segment of conversation. That’s at least 1 person besides me that holds that position. And there’s probably more.

@janitor

b) Statists appear confident in their “solution”, but their eagerness to see polycentric systems fail shows just how confident they are (“State is the best way to organize human affairs and that can be proven any day as long as we manage to successfully exterminate all competing systems”)

So? What’s your point? Where’s the harm in letting people discuss and see if they can’t figure out a system and if a system can be devised then so long as it’s consentual, polycentric and one has the option to opt in and out then where’s the harm? I don’t care if a group of humans want to form into a commune or a city state or whatever societal configuration they wish just so long as I’m not forced to participate if I don’t want to. It only becomes an issue when their ideology is forced on the individual which is why I have an issue with geocentric law and states. But if you just want to create a legal code according to some set of ideals then fly at it just so long as people can opt in and out. Personally I don’t want anything to do with law. But when it comes to code and smart contracts even an honor based culture would require some kind of set of rules to define terms. That’s what it comes down to really: Different ideologies defining terms and identity through protocols and rules.

Even a lot of anarchiest have this rule about non aggression. Anarchy isn’t the absence of rules, just rulers.

[janitor]

Al_Kafir puts too many smileys in his posts to be taken serious. I didn’t get the impression that he actually understands much. Example:

@Al_Kafir

Lol…what’s wrong with that, if given to Safe coin holders 1:1?

What freaking reputation is that, when everyone gets an equal share? The inclusiveness nonsense makes a thief as reputable as most reputable people anywhere.

Anyway, this topic has succeeded in luring people post 150+ meaningless comments without accomplishing anything and I’m not impressed.

If you’re really interested in making any contributions in this area, I recommend you to pick 1-2 projects that specialize in (anonymous?) decentralized reputation, help them make it happen sooner, and once one of them looks promising, advocate it here.
What you choose to do with your time is your own choice, but I am trying to point out the obvious because the lack of both meaningless ideas and any positive feedback doesn’t ring a bell.

[Blindsite2k]

@janitor

Al_Kafir puts too many smileys in his posts to be taken serious.

Too many smileys? Seriously? You’ve got to be joking. Just because he’s a bit more light hearted about the whole affair doesn’t make his logic less sound.

@janitor

What freaking reputation is that, when everyone gets an equal share? The inclusiveness nonsense makes a thief as reputable as most reputable people anywhere.

Unless you missed it he wasn’t proposing designing a reputation system. He was designing a VOTING system. I was the one proposing a reputation system. He’s the one going on about distributing power and loving democracy. Totally different ideological purposes and therefore of course the two different systems would have different characteristics.

@janitor

Anyway, this topic has succeeded in luring people post 150+ meaningless comments without accomplishing anything and I’m not impressed.

The goal here is not to impress you. The goal here is to brainstorm and discuss polycentric law and society. Your ego is irrelevant. So far we’ve accomplished quite a bit actually. We’ve discussed what might work and discounted what won’t work and why. Such is how innovations are discovered.

Though perhaps it would be a good idea to go through and record all the ideas posed, which ones might work, which one’s have been rebutted and proven (so far) not to work, and why, and what the problems faced so far are.

[Al_Kafir]

@janitor

What freaking reputation is that, when everyone gets an equal share?

Not once have I suggested a reputation system…rather a voting system, hence equal votes. I don’t think you’ve followed what I’ve said at all tbh. [quote=“janitor, post:155, topic:4755”]

@janitor

I didn’t get the impression that he actually understands much. Example:

No need for examples - I’ve admitted as much in regard to tech and furthermore,asked for clarification on why my proposal won’t work (loss of anonymity claim) more than once in this very thread. Just saying things won’t work, without any further explanation, despite being asked doesn’t help me or others understand, nor furthers any discussion.
You don’t need to “get the impression” - you can just read the words.[quote=“janitor, post:155, topic:4755”]
Al_Kafir puts too many smileys in his posts to be taken serious.
[/quote]
I find being dismissive of others, not listening or explaining one’s position, denigrating behaviour, name calling etc to be a much more accurate indicator of a person’s seriousness…
.

[janitor]

@Blindsite2k

Unless you missed it he wasn’t proposing designing a reputation system. He was designing a VOTING system.

@Al_Kafir

Not once have I suggested a reputation system…rather a voting system, hence equal votes. I don’t think you’ve followed what I’ve said at all tbh.

He suggested voting but in order to eliminate the need to measure and reward reputation.

@Al_Kafir

Seriously, though, what you see as not being the point, I see as THE point - to get away from money=power/influence/reputation.

How is that not related, then?

And of course the idea is based on the completely discredited socialist thinking that it’s bad to allow the “hoarding” of reputation by the capable.
Instead let’s make sure everyone has the same (i.e. none) reputation and implement “crypto-democracy” by way of distributing a voting crapcoin of sorts to everyone who can fog a mirror. Or maybe not even that, as the zero Proof of Work would allow bots to have the right to vote.

At least democracy may seem like a series of accidents, but to propose such a system on purpose is sickening. Disgusting!

Last week in another topic (created by Fergish) this was discussed and it is clear how that would work and that protocol-level changes would be required. Actual “design proposals” were done by others in a much shorter topic than this.

@anon81773980

Janitor who cries in repeat circular logic, “tis never been tried, and never will.” But what he doesn’t understand that only 1 percent is using anonymity software.

I still claim that for anonymous decentralized reputation.
For other (non-anonymous), I never said it can’t work, so this comment of yours is wrong.

@anon81773980

The reason why it never exist because nobodyactually tried it in the first place. I talked to other devs. They have different mind goal sets, DAO, and direct democracy. So this leads to even smaller group. The only people that I know of are actually want to build a polycentric system is in this forum, and one other forum which is inactive.

It was done before. Bitcoin Nation was based on Counterparty/Bitcoin, and I’m sure altcoins (Bitshares, whatever) have their own little projects like that. Dash also has a voting system and they’ll get DAO features by next spring. There are also several reputation projects that work with any coin.

Anyone who wants to use non-anonymous reputation systems has several free and open source choices right now. It does exist, and it does work. But it seems what bothers you and Blindsite2K is not that there is no solution, but that existing software can’t work natively on the SAFE Network. Which is a different problem.

You are not trying to come up with anything new, but merely how to apply solutions that work on the Web to work on the SAFE Network, because that’s the main challenge for you.

In my mind the SAFE clients should have the ability to use Web apps, while a bunch of people here want to reinvent every possible wheel on the SAFE network. This discussion is another example of such misguided efforts.

Okay, I’m muting this topic now…

[Al_Kafir]

OK, now @Janitor has finished his usual party trick of disappearing after poo-pooing everything and not explaining why- I’ll resume the conversation with those others with something constructive to say.

@janitor

He suggested voting but in order to eliminate the need to measure and reward reputation.

Firstly, I suggested voting for no such reason - purely to have a voting system in place for things affecting the Safe Network that is given to the Safe Community of investors to be gradually more evenly distributed by a reducing formula each time votes are cast. This pretty much negates every other criticism made by @janitor.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
And of course the idea is based on the completely discredited socialist thinking that it’s bad to allow the “hoarding” of reputation by the capable.
[/quote]
No idea what that even means really …unless its the usual Money= Power/reputation nonsense…yeah probably looking at it.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
implement “crypto-democracy” by way of distributing a voting crapcoin of sorts to everyone who can fog a mirror.
[/quote]
Every member of the Community - as happens with every member of a Democratic Society - yes everyone is given a vote.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
At least democracy may seem like a series of accidents, but to propose such a system on purpose is sickening. Disgusting!
[/quote]
Wow…just weird…[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
I still claim that for anonymous decentralized reputation.
[/quote]
Claim away…as usual…[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
For other (non-anonymous), I never said it can’t work, so this comment of yours is wrong.
[/quote]
Unfortunately…No…
A) You still haven’t explained how anonymity is lost
B) A Reputation system would necessarily be an “emergent” property of a voting system. If people vote/comment then reputation is formed.
Edit:
C) The whole ridiculous argument that “You can’t have an Anonymous de-centralised reputation system” seems just plain daft. Why the Hell would anyone want one anyway……what use would one be? It’s like saying “That won’t work because you can’t make a bicycle for fish out of it”.
Firstly you could, secondly……wtf for?
What possible limited use case could anybody want to gain a reputation as an anonymous person…….pseudonymous I get. If you want to remain anonymous, then the last thing you want is a reputation……lol.
Is it just me or what?

[DavidMc0]

This + the 1st thread are serving a purpose for discussion, but I was wondering if anything is emerging from all these months of chat?

If anyone compiling documents that show current proposals, questions to be answered etc?

I’m skeptical, but interested in the concept, but can’t be bothered reading through loads of posts to find the current thinking of how this could work, especially when many posts are not constructive (or short).

If anyone is compiling stuff, could links etc be added to the OP?