On 03/11/12 at 07:32pm, ianG wrote: > Better to avoid that and come up with a payment system that doesn't > need reputation - or at least one that doesn't lean so heavily on > it.
I don't know how split these problems. In everyday life, when I use a payment system (like cash) I accidentally use a reputation system: for example, I know the reputation of sellers, and buy things from high rated ones. The same applies to the sellers: they are more inclined to sell to high rated buyers (but losses happen anyway). The only way which seems, at this point, to be able to avoid the use of reputation systems is a fair exchange. A real life example is easy to setup. > >[1] Enforcing Collaboration in Peer-to-Peer Routing Services > > (by Tim Moreton and Andrew Twigg) > > That's an unfortunate turn of phrase there, which rather strikes at > the heart of the problem you are trying to solve :) It focuses on the routing layer of p2p networks, using a reputation system. What I propose is complementary to that approach: users are incentived to route well by their work, and they are incentived to stay active (e.g. share) because they get money in exchange on mine. So, their work should be extended to include payments on the computation. Or I misunderstood your statement? Anyway, maybe I catched the whole point after reading that from James A. Donald: > But yes, there is no point in fixing a problem which is hard to solve > with a solution to a problem that no one has yet adequately solved. A last question come up to my mind: what about fixing the price? Maybe better than nothing, without consider fair exchange problem. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
