On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Mike Hearn <m...@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
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. 
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to