📅 Original date posted:2014-03-06
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> If there was a way for a Bitcoin user to provide feedback on a payment
>> (ECDSA signature from one of the addresses involved in the payment, signing
>> an identifier of the payment and a feedback score)
>>
>
> Well now you're getting into the area that I said "rapidly got very
> complicated".
>
> Define bitcoin user? What stops me paying myself to accrue positive
> reputation? Etc.
>
Yes, I could see how that could get hairy; it would also need some ability
to rate those giving the feedback, such that if you generate a whole bunch
of payments to yourself, those payees don't have reputation on their own,
so their review of you as a payer isn't weighted that highly. Then you have
that ring-of-trust possibility where Alice thinks Eve is bad, so the fact
that Eve thinks Bob is good doesn't impact Alice. But if Carol thinks Eve
is good, Carol thinks Bob is good too, so Bob's reputation is different
based on who's asking, and it's the responsibility of the individual
members to maintain their own good/bad user lists. Would you think that's a
good thing or a bad thing to give the individual players that level of
control/responsibility?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140306/be0073a8/attachment.html>;
Brooks Boyd [ARCHIVE] /
npub12h…vtmxa
2023-06-07 17:14:53
in reply to nevent1q…6q6y
Author Public Key
npub12hzwfhx9ptjf2f0va8qllc0h4tcvz5aaefvlvn9uq8z2ssrq027qtvtmxaPublished at
2023-06-07 17:14:53Event JSON
{
"id": "8ba5548da207fbdb0c16f8b36907e1e615bfa788bb4e56adcfd56e6516b88226",
"pubkey": "55c4e4dcc50ae49525ece9c1ffe1f7aaf0c153bdca59f64cbc01c4a840607abc",
"created_at": 1686150893,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a596a87c6af457be0f805b03270c063d690d47775921aaf8262e434ce379245e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"198ff8f483721b0a5abb7dcd8c349f75d32d2328d8c17e2635438c16b75feeb7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-03-06\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e If there was a way for a Bitcoin user to provide feedback on a payment\n\u003e\u003e (ECDSA signature from one of the addresses involved in the payment, signing\n\u003e\u003e an identifier of the payment and a feedback score)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Well now you're getting into the area that I said \"rapidly got very\n\u003e complicated\".\n\u003e\n\u003e Define bitcoin user? What stops me paying myself to accrue positive\n\u003e reputation? Etc.\n\u003e\n\nYes, I could see how that could get hairy; it would also need some ability\nto rate those giving the feedback, such that if you generate a whole bunch\nof payments to yourself, those payees don't have reputation on their own,\nso their review of you as a payer isn't weighted that highly. Then you have\nthat ring-of-trust possibility where Alice thinks Eve is bad, so the fact\nthat Eve thinks Bob is good doesn't impact Alice. But if Carol thinks Eve\nis good, Carol thinks Bob is good too, so Bob's reputation is different\nbased on who's asking, and it's the responsibility of the individual\nmembers to maintain their own good/bad user lists. Would you think that's a\ngood thing or a bad thing to give the individual players that level of\ncontrol/responsibility?\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140306/be0073a8/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e4074c45834791cf477bcca19f37a7c73e05442496d939f129cf2dfee8265b5bb3d8002e4c1d049c04c0c414135bf1c3c254d5fbbe9d6afb5827418771db625a"
}