P2P-Zone - View Single Post - How would you manage identities in decentralized p2p?

SA_Dave · 07-09-02, 05:26 PM

I think you misunderstood this system slightly kento. Basically tg wants to eliminate the problems with elitism, judgementalism and sheer arrogance that the current user-controlled systems generate. This includes Direct Connect, ftp ratio sites and similar clients or distribution channels. The proposed trust model would do this automatically, with the community's interests and needs being the supreme mandate. These keys, like any file, could be time-stamped for reference by the network. This would give a grace period to newbies, yet at the same time reward good peers.

When I used the term "community credit", I was referring to a trust or reliability status assigned by other peers. However, this designation wouldn't be totally in the user's hands, as this leads to abuse! This status would be based on performance, reliability and 'behaviour' towards other community members; all within the context of that peer's technical limitations. Things like Direct Connect's 20Gb share minimums are not feasible for all nodes, and a node shouldn't be discriminated against due to an inability to meet strict requirements.

Think of it in these terms : What if WinMX had a permanent hotlist? What if you could automatically determine the trustworthiness of a new contact? Say you've had a long-term online relationship with UserA, from whom you've downloaded reliable, high-quality & even rare files. This user therefore has a high trust rating by default, especially if these files could somehow be rated against some sort of integrated database (like a decentralised version of Bitzi or ShareReactor.) Obviously someone sharing many fakes, virii & the like would be given a rating of "doubt" or "suspicion". Of course this again raises many questions, as not everyone carefully checks everything & the fact that they are sharing anyway might indicate good intentions. Also not everone has the same criteria eg. some people put up with 128kbps mp3s & poorly-encoded videos, but others would consider these files to be of poor quality or even useless!

To continue the hypothetical analogy : UserA then introduces you to UserX, whom he gives a high trust rating for similar reasons. As you all share similar interests, you're more likely to aggregate in this fashion into themed sub-networks of the whole. It could greatly reduce search & general network traffic if peers could be intelligently & deeply linked in this manner. This would make transfers & searches more reliable, as the client would know exactly in which "virtual subnet" to find the content. I use the word "virtual" because this wouldn't in any way be centralised. In fact it would be the best way to maintain relative stability & maximum connectivity in a highly dynamic system. This doesn't mean you'd be limited to only one of these regions if you have broad tastes.

If you receive a new file, and both UserA & UnknownUser1 request it, you're more likely to send it first to the one you deem the most trustworthy based on your own personal experiences. UserA is a known sharer & contributer, therefore he/she would receive priority in the queue as this would most likely create more sources in the longterm for other users. So basically, think of what would happen if WinMX had prioritised queues! Known sharers would get the files first, and they'd distribute it to other known "trustees". The content would spread in the fastest way possible, to the fastest & most trustworthy nodes. It would then have a ripple & trickle-down effect. This method of distribution would be great for broadly allocating rare & in-demand content. Queuing would almost become a thing of the past. Just think how great it would be if partial-file sharing could also be accomodated!

In conclusion, there would only be discrimination against the most malicious peers. I personally believe that the effects of "leeching" are blown way out of proportion! The method of assigning trust levels to verified nodes is mostly just a way to accelerate & maximise content availability. It could also accrue other benefits such as reducing search traffic and eliminating many of the frustrations in current p2p-technologies. Most p2p-users are benign. The only people who'll lose out are those with destructive goals. The spoofing companies & trojan spreaders are included in this category.

I really think it is an admirable goal to strive for!

07-09-02, 05:26 PM	#31
SA_Dave Guardian of the Maturation Chamber Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unimatrix Zero, Area 25 Posts: 462	I think you misunderstood this system slightly kento. Basically tg wants to eliminate the problems with elitism, judgementalism and sheer arrogance that the current user-controlled systems generate. This includes Direct Connect, ftp ratio sites and similar clients or distribution channels. The proposed trust model would do this automatically, with the community's interests and needs being the supreme mandate. These keys, like any file, could be time-stamped for reference by the network. This would give a grace period to newbies, yet at the same time reward good peers. When I used the term "community credit", I was referring to a trust or reliability status assigned by other peers. However, this designation wouldn't be totally in the user's hands, as this leads to abuse! This status would be based on performance, reliability and 'behaviour' towards other community members; all within the context of that peer's technical limitations. Things like Direct Connect's 20Gb share minimums are not feasible for all nodes, and a node shouldn't be discriminated against due to an inability to meet strict requirements. Think of it in these terms : What if WinMX had a permanent hotlist? What if you could automatically determine the trustworthiness of a new contact? Say you've had a long-term online relationship with UserA, from whom you've downloaded reliable, high-quality & even rare files. This user therefore has a high trust rating by default, especially if these files could somehow be rated against some sort of integrated database (like a decentralised version of Bitzi or ShareReactor.) Obviously someone sharing many fakes, virii & the like would be given a rating of "doubt" or "suspicion". Of course this again raises many questions, as not everyone carefully checks everything & the fact that they are sharing anyway might indicate good intentions. Also not everone has the same criteria eg. some people put up with 128kbps mp3s & poorly-encoded videos, but others would consider these files to be of poor quality or even useless! To continue the hypothetical analogy : UserA then introduces you to UserX, whom he gives a high trust rating for similar reasons. As you all share similar interests, you're more likely to aggregate in this fashion into themed sub-networks of the whole. It could greatly reduce search & general network traffic if peers could be intelligently & deeply linked in this manner. This would make transfers & searches more reliable, as the client would know exactly in which "virtual subnet" to find the content. I use the word "virtual" because this wouldn't in any way be centralised. In fact it would be the best way to maintain relative stability & maximum connectivity in a highly dynamic system. This doesn't mean you'd be limited to only one of these regions if you have broad tastes. If you receive a new file, and both UserA & UnknownUser1 request it, you're more likely to send it first to the one you deem the most trustworthy based on your own personal experiences. UserA is a known sharer & contributer, therefore he/she would receive priority in the queue as this would most likely create more sources in the longterm for other users. So basically, think of what would happen if WinMX had prioritised queues! Known sharers would get the files first, and they'd distribute it to other known "trustees". The content would spread in the fastest way possible, to the fastest & most trustworthy nodes. It would then have a ripple & trickle-down effect. This method of distribution would be great for broadly allocating rare & in-demand content. Queuing would almost become a thing of the past. Just think how great it would be if partial-file sharing could also be accomodated! In conclusion, there would only be discrimination against the most malicious peers. I personally believe that the effects of "leeching" are blown way out of proportion! The method of assigning trust levels to verified nodes is mostly just a way to accelerate & maximise content availability. It could also accrue other benefits such as reducing search traffic and eliminating many of the frustrations in current p2p-technologies. Most p2p-users are benign. The only people who'll lose out are those with destructive goals. The spoofing companies & trojan spreaders are included in this category. I really think it is an admirable goal to strive for!