On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:34:01PM -0500, Rob wrote: # Yes, this is very difficult to do, and it requires a lot of work, # assuming it is even possible. I am not saying that people on this # list should come up with a brand new, fool proof trust algorithm. I # am saying that people should be aware that such things *already # exist* in research/academic circles, and there is little to no need # to reinvent the wheel. These solutions are not fool proof, but # might be better than a security-by-obscurity algorithm that has been # developed by coders whom already have all sorts of other # responsibilites.
At the risk of beating Vipul to the punch, it would be nice if:
1. People read the past discussions on this particular topic in the
mailing list archives, including Vipul's response, and
2. People would stop assuming we're:
a. that dumb (clearly some of you must),
b. grossly mis/uninformed about trust and reputation algorithms,
and
c. basing our 100k+ -user service on ideas and technology whose
only protection is the fact that we're "obscuring" it by not
disclosing it.
Hey, we want this system to work as well as you do, and in fact
moreso! But Vipul's comments from an older but similar thread bear
repeating:
TeS is perhaps one of the most significant differentiators against any
other service of this kind, and as such we have not spent any small
amount of time designing it, implementing it, or tweaking it. Its
algorithms have not yet been disclosed, and may never be, but that
does not mean it's got some major flaw we are hiding from the public.
The system works, people _are_ trying to game it actively every day,
and TeS is working extremely well against those individuals.
Best,
--jordan
msg00268/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
