Quote:
Originally posted by SA_Dave
Okay TankGirl, I understand this concept of assigning multiple "aliases" to a trusted node , possibly with different ratings in the case of different users. I also understand that this verified identity wouldn't discriminate against those who aren't really interested in community, but who contribute anyway by default. This would allow for profile-switching & even the use of multiple pcs by a single trusted user.
|
Yep, that is so.
Quote:
Originally posted by SA_Dave
However, as I posted above, this presents a new challenge as far as verification is concerned. How do you absolutely ensure that someone is who they say they are, without using unique biometric patterns such as fingerprints, retina & facial profiling, voice-printing & genetic markers?
|
The p2p identities discussed here have in themselves nothing to do with real world identities, nor should they. They are just to make sure that a peer we suppose to be A really is A. We want the best possible real world privacy together with a lasting, reliable online identity (or identity set) of our choice. It will be our personal choice whether we pass some personal real world information to our online chat companions or not. Reliable p2p identities (together with protected communications) do not weaken our real world privacy but strengthen it. They prevent impostors and malicious third parties from getting access to confidential data and from eavesdropping communications with trusted peers.
Quote:
Originally posted by SA_Dave
Perhaps it's best to refer to your concept more as a "performance review", as this system would seem to apply more to content-distribution than to chatting & searching! The score is influenced by characteristics such as reliability, performance, stability and behaviour under 'real-world' conditions; which could be positively influenced if that particular node or user had a "dynamically permanent" cyber-address. The actual identity of the peer seems irrelevant if you look at it from this perspective.
|
Right. Actual (real world) identity is irrelevant and has nothing to with peer identity. But there’s more to it than the content only.
Purely objective performance measures and transfer statistics are indeed useful in optimising the network for content distribution. But similarly you can measure search success rates (searches leading to consequent downloads) and use them to optimise the network for peer proximity so that similarly minded peers migrate topologically close to each other (under the same supernodes). This already introduces the element of social adhesion to the network and can be handled as automatically as the distribution optimisation.
With tools like chat and browsing things get much more personal, and there will be social life on the network. The same permanent identities that see gracefully at the technical level that the performance statistics will get assigned to correct peers will see also at the social level that chat logs and privileged shares get assigned to correct peers.
Quote:
Originally posted by SA_Dave
These problems can be solved once more intelligently-structured networks arise Phoenix-like from the ashes of the current crop. The frustrations with the current decentralised topologies could be eliminated with a little foresight. The increases in bandwidth should help, but more efficient protocols would also be benificial. I believe that clients which have integrated community-friendly tools and features are the best solution, now & for the forseeable future. It's no good tacking a "peer rating" system onto an otherwise outdated or useless client!
|
Ditto. You have got it.
- tg
