Topic: Working on an idea for simple web-based alternative to bitcoin-otc web of trust (Read 2698 times)

Goodbye Grandpa LOL Maybe you should look up being mature next time cause you clearly not that yet your triple our age LOL

LMAO if you think I am trolling then you clearly have no idea what trolling is... and your being super mature when you do that LMAO

Sorry to see you go, and thanks so much for your input! I'll PM you when I'm a bit further along.

About time for me to unwatch the thread - best of luck OP and PM for further discussion if interested.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Why? When you've just showed us all a perfect example right there.

Regarding the issue of scoring — my untested instinct is that flexibility in the scoring will be useful to users. There are plenty of types of highly structured or very simple trades that I can imagine where -1/0/+1 scoring would be totally appropriate. But for other types of trades that have multiple elements of trust (do I trust this person's ability to deliver on time? to deliver to spec? to communicate clearly? to be courteous in interactions?), more flexible scoring could allow for more nuanced interpretation.

If the protocol can support both, I imagine it will allow more widespread usage than if it rigidly supports a single scoring methodology.

This doesn't prevent any specific user or community — say CIYAM Open's community — from only considering +1/0/-1 scores for the purposes of its own, community-specific trust criteria.

Another untested instinct I have is that interpreting the trust data in the blockchain should be considered a separate process from getting that data into the blockchain (I put something to this effect in the FAQ section on my pitch). For users concerned about specific patterns of scoring that "game the system" (like your example of getting 10 +5 fake ratings versus 50 +1 fake ratings), those users can define what types of scoring data carry weight for their personal decision-making. Scoring histories that are acceptably trustworthy to some users might not be trustworthy to others. I think users should be expected to consider what algorithm/criteria they use to interpret the trust data; it keeps them responsible, rather than encouraging blind trust in a single number.

As far I can see the OP is about creating a send of standard conforming tx's over the Bitcoin protocol that can be used to define a WoT system - if you have something other than terminology disputes or arguments about how easy GPG is or isn't to use that would be helpful to this thread otherwise your input is just coming across as trolling (if you think people should just use Bitcoin-OTC you are entitled to that opinion and I think you've already made that point here so can we keep OT please?).

Correct. I haven't yet written a detailed protocol specification. Just to reiterate: this thread is for the purpose of brainstorming an idea with the benefit of other Bitcoin users' and developers' feedback. My goal in this thread is to gain insight that can help me start experimenting with some different protocol specifications.


No, I don't expect lots of people to simply recognize and adhere to a new standard for scoring trust. I do hope, however, that in time I can build a proof of concept, gather a few alpha users, etc., and then try to grow it from there.


Agreed. Again, this idea is currently in the early concept phase. Version 0.01. Or 0.00000001, if you prefer ;-)

Very serious LOL 100% serious, I don't know what software you were using but honestly I know about 10 people non-techies that use gpg no problems.

I understand but IMO that just makes it easier to *game* the system (i.e. getting 10 +5 *fake* ratings is certainly going to be easier than getting 50 +1 *fake* ratings - I have the same problem with the "skill points" system I have implemented in CIYAM Open and am now thinking of changing it for just this reason).

at least on the plus side, it would be nice to have a range (similar to the 5 star system).


the problem as i see it is that this should really be integrated into the CLIENTS. so unless you plan on offering your own client, what you are currently suggesting sounds to me like a new proprietary protocol that you want the currently OPEN clients to adopt. i don't want to in any way discourage you from what you're doing, its just that i'm just starting to see the trends in bitcion and they all seem to move towards OPEN / DECENTRALIZED protocols.

i'm currently working on a fork of bitcoinjs, which comes with its own web-based client -- similar to blockchain.info's mywallet. i'd love the idea of integrating a blockchain wot into this client.


i know you're not serious. you couldn't possibly be serious.

A couple of things I'd like to suggest:

1) rather than ratings between -10 and +10 why not just keep it minimal so: -1 (failed), 0 (resolved) or +1 (succeeded)

2) reserve the entire 8 digits of each protocol tx so that the protocol can be extended

and of course it would be advised to *formalise* the protocol *before* starting up the service.

Apart from rating specific transactions for services or goods it would be useful to have *special* ratings for things like GPG identity and perhaps even other *real identity verifications* that could useful for services such as loans.

But there is not a protocol... So you just hoping people will recognized this as uniformed way of doing trust. I really think this needs more time to be thought out, I think your jumping in with two feet, but it takes a lot of time to develop these things.

Yes!

Ideally, I'd like to see the AudenX.com website develop into a showcase of how such an open protocol can work, and of how easy to use it could be. Whether the protocol that ultimately emerges requires users to send outputs to a certain address or not, I imagine there will still be a place in that ecosystem where users will need products (web, mobile, etc.) that give them easy interfaces to the trust info on blockchain. Long-term, I'm hoping AudenX can offer products like that. Near-term, AudenX could just be a testing ground to get the wheels turning in peoples' heads. There are already a ton of ideas I have that presuppose the existence of this trust data — but the protocol needs to exist first, and I need to find a group of people interested in using it.

Wait you know how to use GPG and you couldn't use IRC and GPG at the same time, with gribble, then obviously you never knew how to use GPG in the first place LMAO If you know GPG then gribble is a piece of cake probably even easier.

GPG is already too easy how much more easier do you want it? Like you said do you want someone to move the mouse for you that is the only way it will get easier.

Actually there are two people that are non-geeky ident on OTC so yeah I guess they know magic or something.

GPG is not necessarily TOO hard, but it is certainly and without question the HARDEST form of authentication to adopt.  I recently joined the WoT and was pleasantly surpised to see it using GPG. This allowed me to renew some very old keys, update my passwords and generally update myself on the state of the technology. But I was very disappointed to say the least at how difficult it was to get everything working properly (invalidating old keys, updating the public repos, etc).  I was even more disappointed by how difficult it is to get verified on IRC (at one point I just quit and had to restart the next day).

The only way I can see a non-geek making this work successfully is if you literally "hold their hand and move their fingers for them", then write auth "scripts" that they can use on IRC. I get a little turned off when people suggest that its sooo EASY as if anyone who can't figure it out on their own is an idiot.

I'm totally in favor of both GPG and 2-factor auth.  I'd say that Google Authenticator (free and open source on most platforms) finally made 2FA possible for everyone.  Someone needs to do the same thing for GPG.
--------------------

Moving on, I really like this idea of blockchain trust, but I'd never support a system that was centralized (the same way bitcoin-otc is now) to one organization.  Most of the projects that I'm looking into and working on now are trying to decentralize a centralized service and I think this is the right direction moving forward.

The way I see it, as soon as the idea catches on there will be at least a dozen audenx trust networks maybe using the same protocol, maybe not.  Don't you think it would be best to start with an OPEN protocol (as in NOT tied to any specific address)?

Even worse - these people want to be paid via PayPal !!!

Well that is true, but they will figure it out that it will be more and more important as there bitcoin career goes on.

Sure - although they never even got as far as asking for help (basically just complained that they don't want to use GPG and would only join if it they could use their "Google" or "Facebook" accounts to login).

(a bit hard to teach someone that doesn't want to even learn)

It isn't magic, I just know how to teach GPG, which includes pointing them to software that will make it easy, what they will need to know in the command line. I really don't understand how they gave up GPG isn't a hard thing to learn to just use.

I actually taught a person IRC and GPG for bitcoin-otc and they gave up trying on their own, after I explain and held there hand showing them and explain exactly what they need to know, how to use it and what references will be a great deal of wealth to them.

Also If they are giving up that means they are probably frustrated and sometimes it is the teacher that can cause that.