Topic: Trust Building List - Ron Gross - page 3. (Read 6236 times)
I know not everyone here is willing to give out info as it is intended to be anonymous if they choose, but the random bum in a hoodie I cannot see the face of that walks up to me on the street and asks me to borrow (briefly) about $200 (20btc~) I think the chances are pretty slim unless he has a weapon.
For the amounts over lets say 10 BTC I agree this would be a good measure, pay like .5 btc to a trusted party to perform a short interview where the person would have to take the webcam and show the outside of the home so it can be tracked down on google maps. Thats kinda difficult to fake.
Yes, this is an example of the kind of ankering in the real world that is needed for extended trust relations.I am willing to sell insurance about certain people ... a subset of my FT list.
But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?
I don't expect that you personally will give such insurance for free. But there are some situations where people might do this.But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?
Two individuals might choose to mutually assure each other's performance. Or someone might agree to underwrite a retailer's performance in return for a discount at that retailer.
Mobodick thought that this kind of assurance was like Matthew's bet. It isn't. It's like how Matthew's bet would be if there was a whole web of assurance. Suppose Matthew's performance was underwritten by MagicalTux, Gavin Andresen and Vladimir, and furthermore that those guarantors' performance was underwritten by others. That would be enough to satisfy most people.
I don't get it.
Even if Mathews performance would have been underwritten in ths way, would there have been a reason to trust him in hindsight?
If not, then this system would have failed, and propably not only in this obvious case.
For the amounts over lets say 10 BTC I agree this would be a good measure, pay like .5 btc to a trusted party to perform a short interview where the person would have to take the webcam and show the outside of the home so it can be tracked down on google maps. Thats kinda difficult to fake.
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
I am willing to sell insurance about certain people ... a subset of my FT list.
But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?
How would you even make sure your insurance will cover the case someone turns out to be a scammer anyway?
What will you bring to the table (in terms of trustability) to justify a fee?
If someone bought insurance from you and got scammed for BTC100.000 would you recoup that loss?
Is trust in trust more justified if it's paid for?
Or are you simply going by "If i paid for it it must be good"?
Shared.
BTW, D&T - I think there is definitely room for an easy to use trust/insurance/debt platform, with optional connections to PGP signatures, Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, BTC, USD, ...
Trust should be monitizable and tradeable.
It needs to be developed with strong UX principles, while still keeping security in mind as a top priority.
Of course we'll need to have some trust in the platform itself, audits, etc...
Trust should be monitizable and tradeable.
It needs to be developed with strong UX principles, while still keeping security in mind as a top priority.
Of course we'll need to have some trust in the platform itself, audits, etc...
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
I am willing to sell insurance about certain people ... a subset of my FT list.
But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
What is the incentive to do that? Honest question. I could see something like that working but there has to be an incentive for the person making the vouch. Otherwise it is risk x to gain 0 which is always a bad decision. Interesting concept to monetize trust. It makes me thing some system is there I just can't see it through the coffee starved fog in my brain.
Yeah it does have some parallels. In making a "BTC-vouch" you are trusting the person you are vouching not to cause a financial loss much like when you deposit your money/gold/btc in a bank you are trusting the banker not to cause a financial loss/theft.
Just had a weird idea. If a system like that ever developed (where people backed "vouches" with financial penalties) you could see professional "trust-bondsman". Say some new trader has no rep or little rep and he needs rep to get rep. So he goes to a "trust-bondsman" who collects some ID, makes some verifying phone calls, and requires the new trader to put up some funds into escrow (say 20 BTC). The trust bondsman may then offer x BTC of rep (will pay x BTC for a busted trade). The 20 BTC are just escrowed so later when the new trader has enough self earned rep he can collect his escrow back (minus a fee). Higher level of guarantee may require more extensive dox (mail verifciation, public records search, etc) and a larger escrow. In time the bondman may offer a higher x BTC on the same escrowed amount.
Anyways feel free to ignore just bouncing some unfinished ideas out there.
You will just need a way to trust in the bondsman.
There needs to be absolute incentive for the bondsman (or even list-maker) to be neutral all the time.
Also, who will decide what is a busted trade and who to blame for it?
And how will you trust the person making this decision?
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
What is the incentive to do that? Honest question. I could see something like that working but there has to be an incentive for the person making the vouch. Otherwise it is risk x to gain 0 which is always a bad decision. Interesting concept to monetize trust. It makes me thing some system is there I just can't see it through the coffee starved fog in my brain.
Yeah it does have some parallels. In making a "BTC-vouch" you are trusting the person you are vouching not to cause a financial loss much like when you deposit your money/gold/btc in a bank you are trusting the banker not to cause a financial loss/theft.
Just had a weird idea. If a system like that ever developed (where people backed "vouches" with financial penalties) you could see professional "trust-bondsman". Say some new trader has no rep or little rep and he needs rep to get rep. So he goes to a "trust-bondsman" who collects some ID, makes some verifying phone calls, and requires the new trader to put up some funds into escrow (say 20 BTC). The trust bondsman may then offer x BTC of rep (will pay x BTC for a busted trade). The 20 BTC are just escrowed so later when the new trader has enough self earned rep he can collect his escrow back (minus a fee). Higher level of guarantee may require more extensive dox (mail verifciation, public records search, etc) and a larger escrow. In time the bondman may offer a higher x BTC on the same escrowed amount.
Anyways feel free to ignore just bouncing some unfinished ideas out there.
Thinking a little further really OTC is the answer BUT there needs to be a couple improvements:
a) there needs to be an OTC lite portal. Getting GPG can be tough enough, then using IRC, authenticating, etc. That can be overwhelming so people don't use it. Some OTC lite portal (maybe with limits on # tx, etc) would allow more people to use it and that makes the system more powerful.
b) the big one. There is no consequence for bad ratings. If I give Pirate a rating 10 (I didn't) then I am staking my rep on Pirate rep. If it turns out I am wrong (either through collusion or ignorance) there should be a penalty to my rep. That might not seem very fair but think about it for a second. If I am a horribly bad judge of character then there should be some discount for my ratings right?
Imagine I give a 10 to 3 known scammers and nobody else.
ripper234 gives a 10 to 3 people who show themselves to be trustworthy (by future good trades).
Obviously a 10 from ripper234 means more than a 10 from me right?
Anyways just throwing some random stuff out there maybe something sticks.
a) there needs to be an OTC lite portal. Getting GPG can be tough enough, then using IRC, authenticating, etc. That can be overwhelming so people don't use it. Some OTC lite portal (maybe with limits on # tx, etc) would allow more people to use it and that makes the system more powerful.
b) the big one. There is no consequence for bad ratings. If I give Pirate a rating 10 (I didn't) then I am staking my rep on Pirate rep. If it turns out I am wrong (either through collusion or ignorance) there should be a penalty to my rep. That might not seem very fair but think about it for a second. If I am a horribly bad judge of character then there should be some discount for my ratings right?
Imagine I give a 10 to 3 known scammers and nobody else.
ripper234 gives a 10 to 3 people who show themselves to be trustworthy (by future good trades).
Obviously a 10 from ripper234 means more than a 10 from me right?
Anyways just throwing some random stuff out there maybe something sticks.
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
What is the incentive to do that? Honest question. I could see something like that working but there has to be an incentive for the person making the vouch. Otherwise it is risk x to gain 0 which is always a bad decision. Interesting concept to monetize trust. It makes me thing some system is there I just can't see it through the coffee starved fog in my brain.
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
What is the incentive to do that? Honest question. I could see something like that working but there has to be an incentive for the person making the vouch. Otherwise it is risk x to gain 0 which is always a bad decision. Interesting concept to monetize trust. It makes me thing some system is there I just can't see it through the coffee starved fog in my brain.
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
Pirate had plenty of "WD"-type trust. How about a trust metric that really means something:
BTCBTC - I believe this person is trustworthy and reliable, and I will reimburse anyone up to xxx BTC if this person is shown to be untrustworthy or unreliable.
I'm not sure when people are gonna realise that this is the internet and you can't trust text on the internet to be true all by itself.
Lists won't work for large communities.
It would become impractical to go through them in no time at all.
It would be much better if all things that rely on trust would move to a different location on the web which has facilities to deal with trust relations.
This board is already bogged down by impractical ammounts of impractical lists of stuff.
It would become impractical to go through them in no time at all.
It would be much better if all things that rely on trust would move to a different location on the web which has facilities to deal with trust relations.
This board is already bogged down by impractical ammounts of impractical lists of stuff.
Indeed. Do you know of a better existing website to manage this list?
If not, it should be built (and will eventually be built).
Until the site exist, I posted the list here as a public service.
I'm not just talking about a website.
What's important is that there is a way to verify trust relations.
In all occurences of lists, what would prevent someone from injecting coherent false information of trust?
If you can't resolve this problem lists are just extentions of the current level of trust quality.
What could be used to realy strenghten trust relations (and i know people here won't like it, for various reasons) is real world accountability.
Added Eli Sklar, author of Safebit
Lists won't work for large communities.
It would become impractical to go through them in no time at all.
It would be much better if all things that rely on trust would move to a different location on the web which has facilities to deal with trust relations.
This board is already bogged down by impractical ammounts of impractical lists of stuff.
It would become impractical to go through them in no time at all.
It would be much better if all things that rely on trust would move to a different location on the web which has facilities to deal with trust relations.
This board is already bogged down by impractical ammounts of impractical lists of stuff.
Indeed. Do you know of a better existing website to manage this list?
If not, it should be built (and will eventually be built).
Until the site exist, I posted the list here as a public service.
I foresee a structured large-scale graphic web-of-trust wiki-style reference with history that's dynamic and distributed...
Indeed.
In light of the last few crazy months, I wanted to share a list of all the people in the Bitcoin world that I trust to some degree. I will try to update this list sometimes (no promises) ... if you think I should trust you, pm/post and if I do, I'll add you to the list.
You are welcome to post your own message on this thread (or create another), with a list of people whom you personally trust.
Here are some trust flags:
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
- RL - I have met this person in real life.
- ID - I believe I know who this person is.
- FT - I financially trust this person to honor his word.
(Sorry for overly complicating this, but I think it's important to break down trust into specific elements)
The list itself has now become a table, hosted at Google Docs
I will post when I updated this list.
You are welcome to post your own message on this thread (or create another), with a list of people whom you personally trust.
Here are some trust flags:
- WD - I believe this person is a man of his word.
- RL - I have met this person in real life.
- ID - I believe I know who this person is.
- FT - I financially trust this person to honor his word.
(Sorry for overly complicating this, but I think it's important to break down trust into specific elements)
The list itself has now become a table, hosted at Google Docs
I will post when I updated this list.
Lists won't work for large communities.
It would become impractical to go through them in no time at all.
It would be much better if all things that rely on trust would move to a different location on the web which has facilities to deal with trust relations.
This board is already bogged down by impractical ammounts of impractical lists of stuff.
This is quite handy - thanks for sharing.
I foresee a structured large-scale graphic web-of-trust wiki-style reference with history that's dynamic and distributed...
Jump to: