Re: pseudonyms & list health

From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
> hence, what I am suggesting is that one
> of the "stable attractors"  that TM is always talking about
> may be a reality in which people pool most of their accomplishments
> under a single nym. furthermore, they will wish to avoid conflict
> with other nyms in respect to attribution. 
> isn't this, functionally, the equivalent of the supposed
> anti-cypherpunk "true names"?

An interesting point.  I have long wished that there would be a form of
"credential certificates" which people could give as special signatures
on other people's public keys.  Then using Chaumian credential technology
it would be possible to anonymously transfer these credentials from one
pseudonym to another.

This is not a perfect solution, of course.  Much reputation is informal
and simply resides in the opinions held in people's minds.  But perhaps
if a more structured solution like this became widespread it would help
to prevent the "concentration of reputation" which Vlad describes.

Along with the usual flames, I occasionally get messages saying nice
things about postings I have made, and I sometimes save these in a file
called "praise".  Here are some excerpts:

> Again, thanks for posting some useful information that
> actually has *direct relevance to crypto*.

> I really enjoyed reading this.  It was well written and comprehensive. 
> Thanks for sharing it. 

> Nice post!

I certainly appreciate these kinds of comments, but it would be even
more useful if such messages were expressed as the kinds of
certificates I am describing.  I wonder whether people would be willing
to use a program which would let them issue such "reputation
signatures" of various kinds, and display the signatures which were
present on keys.

Discussion of such schemes has often bogged down in considering the
various categories or types of credentials people might want to give.
This is somewhat analogous to the "rate-the-net" schemes we have talked
about where a similar issue arises if we try to mark pages with a whole
range of characteristics so people can judge whether they should let
their kids read them.  Perhaps the solution needs to be found in
simplicity.  SurfWatch (as I understand it) gives a simple "thumbs down"
to selected web pages.  Maybe a simple "endorsement" would be useful as a
reputation credential without trying to identify exactly what it is about
the person you are endorsing.

I could see such a system initially being piggybacked on PGP keys (the
signatures would not be understandable by PGP though), although for
Chaumian credential transfers the keys have to be specially structured
and that would require a new approach.

Who would be willing and/or interested enough to use such a system if it
existed?

Hal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 3 Sep 1995 21:51:21 -0700, Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com> wrote:

} An interesting point.  I have long wished that there would be a form of
} "credential certificates" which people could give as special signatures
} on other people's public keys.  Then using Chaumian credential technology
} it would be possible to anonymously transfer these credentials from one
} pseudonym to another.
/.../ 
} I certainly appreciate these kinds of comments, but it would be even
} more useful if such messages were expressed as the kinds of
} certificates I am describing.  I wonder whether people would be willing
} to use a program which would let them issue such "reputation
} signatures" of various kinds, and display the signatures which were
} present on keys.
/.../ 
} I could see such a system initially being piggybacked on PGP keys (the
} signatures would not be understandable by PGP though), although for
} Chaumian credential transfers the keys have to be specially structured
} and that would require a new approach.

When the list was discussing "key as final authority" a while back,
Wei Dai posted (on May 31) a program called 'addid' which allows one
to add arbitrary strings as user IDs on other peoples' pgp keys.
These appear just as though PGP had added them itself, and are signable
and displayable by regular old PGP.

As an exercise, I grabbed Hal's "insecure key" from the keyserver,
and used 'addid' to add a new ID to it, which I then signed.

Here's the output of 'pgp -kc 0xcbd301':
Key ring: 'pubring.pgp', looking for user ID "0xcbd301".
Type bits/keyID    Date       User ID
pub   512/4ECBD301 1994/11/29 Hal writes good posts -- Read them all
sig!      2C48CAE9 1995/09/04  Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com>
                              Hal Finney insecure key
sig!      58214C37 1994/12/01  Hal Finney <74076.1041@compuserve.com>

(If anyone cares) here is Hal's key cbd301, as summarized above:
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
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=xEr2
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


here is my key 48cae9, which signs the above new ID (and this mail):
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
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=w+eq
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::   Lou Poppler  <lwp@mail.msen.com>   |    Doom an evil deed,           ::
::     http://www.msen.com/~lwp/        |     liven a mood.               ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMEtoa2pfQFwsSMrpAQGDAwQAjrdHWqJSsI5WB9exvJZf21mVZwCjaGuH
XlK/e0+i6p3Zf8YYyY3EFP/gwL4191PhB2AG2gD77tI0ijG7GI8gD0nZQc3ZwH/C
N+zfgH9OOOVxu5CUKcuSBC8AgIu7RYdKb3WFqA+5QczjaWjKiz5XuviJoUg1QLGD
TemyBujRxhE=
=RYHl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

*My* willingness to use such a system would depend on the system. Of course,
if you create such a system there will be somebody who uses it... how well
and in what circumstances, and how many people, use it, is another matter.

My worry is about abuse.  One would prefer to save endorsements and find
a way to remove thumbs-downs... also how to prevent one from overdoing a
thumbs-up or -down certification for a person (either to inflate or de-
flate a reputation).

In terms of persons, I see this more as an electronic equivalent of medals
awards, or those nifty little smiley stickers my second grade teacher used
to give.  After a while they become meaningless.

Systems to rate web-sites, newsgroups, etc. in terms of specific qualities
(sexual content, religious sentiment, useful information, technical/skill
level of material, size of posts/files, etc.) that showed the given
ratings of various organizations or people who were certified to rate on
that system would be good... if implemented properly.

Deranged Mutant writes:
> My worry is about abuse.  One would prefer to save endorsements and find
> a way to remove thumbs-downs... also how to prevent one from overdoing a
> thumbs-up or -down certification for a person (either to inflate or de-
> flate a reputation).

A few nuisance lawsuits from people who were given thumbs-downs might do the
trick, as with employment recommendations in the U.S. :[

> In terms of persons, I see this more as an electronic equivalent of medals
> awards, or those nifty little smiley stickers my second grade teacher used
> to give.  After a while they become meaningless.

ObTim: As in other reputation markets, some people will spread their blessings
more liberally than others. They do this at the risk of diluting the worth of
each credential granted. It all comes out in the wash.

A reviewer named Susan Granger, for example, is known to me as a person who 
routinely lauds lousy movies. Thus it's simple for me to ignore her positive
recommendations (I've yet to see a negative review from her). In fact, when
I observe that a new film prominently features her seal of approval in its 
advertising, I take that fact as an indication of the lack of praise from
more discriminating reviewers. So a nominal "positive" credential may be
interpreted as an implicit negative credential, depending upon context.

OTOH, if I only give digital thumbs-up to a couple of people on the list,
those who consider me a reputable appraiser-of-cpunks should find the
information relatively useful. I'm sure I can manage to be a harsher critic
than your 2nd-grade teacher :}  Using e.g. a single 1-10 scale would be
highly practical for such purposes, IMHO.

-Futplex

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Futplex sez:
> 
> A reviewer named Susan Granger, for example, is known to me as a person who 
> routinely lauds lousy movies. Thus it's simple for me to ignore her positive
> recommendations (I've yet to see a negative review from her). In fact, when
> I observe that a new film prominently features her seal of approval in its 
> advertising, I take that fact as an indication of the lack of praise from
> more discriminating reviewers. So a nominal "positive" credential may be
> interpreted as an implicit negative credential, depending upon context.
> 
> OTOH, if I only give digital thumbs-up to a couple of people on the list,
> those who consider me a reputable appraiser-of-cpunks should find the
> information relatively useful. I'm sure I can manage to be a harsher critic
> than your 2nd-grade teacher :}  Using e.g. a single 1-10 scale would be
> highly practical for such purposes, IMHO.


There are people working on an extension of UseNet to allow each reader to
publish ratings which propagate in the same way that articles do.  These
ratings can be of specific articles, of threads or of authors.  Your
newsreaders can rank the articles and present them to you in
highest-to-lowest ranked order, or kill all those below a certain mark, or
some such.

The heuristic that the researchers originally started with was "if I agreed 
with so-and-so in the past then I'll probably agree with him again."  
(Personally I would rather have some degree of manual control over my 
ratings-weightings.  My good friends automatically get more weight than 
people I don't know, regardless of how much our ratings coincide.  
Similarly I might want to downgrade certain net.assholes just out of a 
sense of justice, even if they recommend good articles usually.  :-) )


Unfortunately I have lost the URL for this wonderful experiment.  Hopefully
the fruits of their labors will become publically available soon.  I will
certainly be one of the first to sign up to distribute ratings and to listen
to (some) other people's.


Bryce

signatures follow:


                                 +                                           
    public key on keyservers     /.       island Life in a chaos sea         
    or via finger 0x617c6db9     /             bryce.wilcox@colorado.edu     
                                 ---*                                     

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed with Bryce's Auto-PGP v1.0beta3

iQCVAwUBMEvcJfWZSllhfG25AQE+0QQAj2rx2gT9gaYlMyhiJd3TkfrjAS9dVcYk
iFUHu1wsrcIoXvHExRmvborJArcix7uz/qptO9lg8DHRAxHYGtJyEzDaCnq60juz
xFHt/7NdV+gLIv5JVHFDCxTzzfmwNSvr5Q2Rb5vv8jUmih4AhSzkApBHF/lzFhNH
2U3SYK7Vmhc=
=Zodf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----