Hello,
Ray Dillinger <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 02:08 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
>> > .
>> >
>> > Most notably, if the certifying authority were to lose its legitimacy,
>> > side rings could
>> > emerge and take over on higher ethical grounds and with data loss on the
>> > users' side.
>> >
>> From your messages and Stéphane Bortzmeyer remarks, it looks like a PGP
>> web of trust would be an acceptable balance. From a political / social
>> point of view, it would promote the emergence of multiple authorities
>> instead of a single authority. For instance when a node tries to join a
>> DHT by contacting a known node, it would also accept to only trust nodes
>> that are connected to this node thru the PGP web of trust. From a
>> technical point of view it would limit the nodes of the ring to those
>> accepting the same rule.
>
> IMO the PGP web of trust is a failed idea. Trust is not and never was
> transitive.
A couple of remarks:
- OpenPGP relates to trust in name/email address bindings, no more.
For instance, it is not intended to model trust in someone’s good
behavior as a peer in the Seeks network.
- OpenPGP itself doesn’t assume that trust is transitive. The
decision of whether to trust the name/email bindings in an OpenPGP
key is up to the end user.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
