Reputations

At 8:09 PM 5/15/96, Steve Reid wrote:

>Another problem with reputations is that people are stuck until they get a
>good one. A bad rep can always start over. In fact, a person/company can
>look perfectly nice, but use a different identity for dirty work.

Sure. And they do this today (use cut-outs or subcontractors to limit
reputational damage or liability).

>Naturally, you'd only trust dealings that involve a "nice" identity.

Not necessarily. Many people play the numbers, implicitly trusting the
Mafia to pay off on bets they win. (Many don't think the Mafia has a very
"nice" identity, but your mileage may vary.)

In fact, nearly all of the alleged problems with anonymous systems,
especially the issues of defections, trust, expectation of payoff, etc.,
have parallels in other "extra-legal" situations. For example, the Mafia
and other extra-legal or criminal operations.

Do they sometimes defect (welsh)? Sure. Do they sometimes screw over the
little guy? Sure. Do people trust them just enough to keep dealing with
them voluntarily? Sure. (Before anyone mentions it, there are of course
cases where people are forced to deal with criminal gangs nonvoluntarily,
such as with shakedowns, hijackings of trucks, etc. But a large fraction of
the dealings with the Mafia, Jamaican gangs, Russian mob, etc., are for
market reasons, where a market need for drugs, girls, cheap cigarettes,
gambling, loans, etc., is being filled by players who are outside the
normal legal marketplace.)

>Problem is, young people who are just starting out have a no-reputation
>identity, and would be treated the same as the no-reputation identities
>that are used for screwing people over.

Sure, newcomers always have it rough. Whether the newcomer is Nancy the
Nym, or Eustace T. Collins, III, Esq., just starting out in a law firm, the
newcomer has little positive reputation. (It varies, and the degree may
mean something, just as Nancy the Nym may have some reputation capital to
show.)

I mentioned "postive reputation." There is a real cost in throwing out,
say, 30 years of accumulated reputation capital, and this will not be done
lightly by many. Thus, in a given transaction, a lot may be at stake.

(I don't mean for this brief article to be an essay on the many fascinating
issues surrounding reputation and reputation capital. Cf. my Cyphernomicon
for much more on this topic.)

>Reputations could be very hard to create, and very easy to destroy.

As in real life. People can destroy their reputations by being careless. (I
disagree with your implied point that the opinions of others can easily
destroy a reputation. In real life, it usually takes a lot more than just
bad-mouthing. Even in nym-space, the same is apparently true.)

>Well-known good reputations would be powerful and fairly hard to destroy,
>so it's possible that the big reputations might try to crush little
>reputations in an effort to gain some sort of reputation monopoly. Maybe.

Implausible as a central problem, but all things will likely happen. This
happens occasionally in the real world, as when a Big Reputation (e.g.,
Bill Clinton) belittles and marginalizes a Small Reputation (e.g., Paula
Jones).

There's a vast amount of stuff to think about with reputations. I applaud
Steve for doing some thinking, but I don't think he's yet uncovered
anything especially unique or worrisome.

As a last point, see especially the role of anonymous escrow agents.

A number of years ago the example I usually used was "Ace Escrow--You Slay,
We Pay," to illustrate that an anonymous escrow holder (holding untraceable
e-cash deposited by the purchaser of a murder contract) could pay off a
murderer who presented certain evidence, all without any of the parties
having any idea whatsover whom the other parties were. The problem is then
one of whether the escrow company will simply pocket the money and not pay
off.  First, it can be set up (I think) that the e-cash is uncashable by
the escrow company...but I'm not sure this is needed. A better solution is
to rely on the basic nature of escrow or bonding services: their reputation
capital is much more valuable to them than anything to be gained by
defecting and burning their clients. Except if they are about to retire
anyway...as with the bonded courier who defects to Rio de Janeiro with a
bag of diamonds....the trick is to spread the escrow money around to
multiple escrow agents, and to rely on "escrow testing services" which
periodically ping or test the services....

There are many issues here. I'm not advocating murder markets, just noting
that they provide an easy to understand and fairly "pure" example. If it
can be done with murders for hire, it can be done with nearly anything.

A few years ago, many valuable ideas were contributed in this area by Dave
Ross, Phil Salin, Dean Tribble, Hal Finney, and Robin Hanson.

You might search for their articles.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

do you really consider the mafia a good example of how you would 
like "cyberspatial reality" to operate? it seems to me that people
developing future infrastructure for cyberspace ought to be more
concerned about making mafia-like roles less easy, not more easy.
but obviously this is just yammering on my part, because I and
others on the list know you better than that.

this of course is not the first time  you have held up the mafia
as a glowing paradigm, and the reason I am now commenting on it. I recall
a rather stunning message some time ago in which you talked
endearingly (well, as much as it is possible for you to do so) of
mafia informants being hunted down through information warfare,
and why this was quite fitting because of the way the government
uses the same manipulation via witness relocation. (well, not quite
like that, but the logic was hard to follow)

>Do they sometimes defect (welsh)? Sure. Do they sometimes screw over the
>little guy? Sure. Do people trust them just enough to keep dealing with
>them voluntarily? Sure.

not in a civilized society. good g*d, you consider the mafia a
model of good business? are you aware of what goes on in Italy
and Columbia, and you are becoming a mafia apologist? the basic
rule of thumb if you are operating in a mafia-like organization
is "only deal with people you can manipulate or rub out without
consequence", quite the opposite in legitimate business.

> (Before anyone mentions it, there are of course
>cases where people are forced to deal with criminal gangs nonvoluntarily,
>such as with shakedowns, hijackings of trucks, etc. But a large fraction of
>the dealings with the Mafia, Jamaican gangs, Russian mob, etc., are for
>market reasons, where a market need for drugs, girls, cheap cigarettes,
>gambling, loans, etc., is being filled by players who are outside the
>normal legal marketplace.)

an interesting thesis, quite revealing. "the mafia is fulfilling a 
valid market purpose. the killings & violence are just minor secondary
issues."  I believe in contrast I would define the mafia exactly
the opposite. the violence and terror is the key part of the mafia agenda.
the activities they involve themselves in are secondary to promoting
the basic agenda of obtaining money in any way possible. how can you
portray the mafia as an honorable business? what you will find, I think,
is that the "professionalism" that was supposedly a part of the mafia
is crumbling into total anarchy. the mafia is undergoing a transformation
in which many of their sacred taboos, such as mafia wives not being
involved, not killing certain people, etc.-- are dissolving. there
is no honor among thieves.

of course I highly doubt you will respond to my points, because you
will realize your error of revealing too much of your true opinion.
best to hide in the woodwork and post a few more bland messages and
everyone will forget my blasphemous challenge in a few days beneath
the froth.

>A number of years ago the example I usually used was "Ace Escrow--You Slay,
>We Pay," to illustrate that an anonymous escrow holder (holding untraceable
>e-cash deposited by the purchaser of a murder contract) could pay off a
>murderer who presented certain evidence, all without any of the parties
>having any idea whatsover whom the other parties were.

what amazes me about people who tend to have a warped mindset is that
they think new technology, such as cyberspace, creates a new morality.
suddenly murdering, violence, drug dealing, or whatever are supposedly
thrust into some new reality in which old rules no longer apply.
you and Jim Bell are unbelievably similar, as much as either of you
would hate to admit it. its just a cloak, in my opinion, for trying
to evade culpability. the ultimate utopia for some on this list would
be a world in which they can be held accountable for absolutely nothing,
by absolutely no one. "anarchy" is as good a word as our reality can
come close to, although I believe such a reality would be far more
sinister than that adjective connotes.

> The problem is then
>one of whether the escrow company will simply pocket the money and not pay
>off.  First, it can be set up (I think) that the e-cash is uncashable by
>the escrow company...but I'm not sure this is needed. A better solution is
>to rely on the basic nature of escrow or bonding services: their reputation
>capital is much more valuable to them than anything to be gained by
>defecting and burning their clients. Except if they are about to retire
>anyway...as with the bonded courier who defects to Rio de Janeiro with a
>bag of diamonds....the trick is to spread the escrow money around to
>multiple escrow agents, and to rely on "escrow testing services" which
>periodically ping or test the services....
think about it really hard, TCM. work out those difficult problems
associated with trying to kill people and get away with it, using
new sexy advances in technology and theory. you
have a very good start after years of deep thinking. why,
if you can come up with such creative and compelling ideas on
DC nets and remailers, surely you can solve this problem. it is
a problem that begs for resolution. how many people have yearned for
such a capability over the centuries!! 

maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps
eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect
killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without
getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the
most unappreciated and misunderstood.
something that has only been a dream to the blighted
wretches prior to our glorious new phases of cyberspatial technology,
which makes human morality completely obsolete.
surely once all these difficult issues can be resolved (and surely
they can, with such great minds as RSA or Chaum walking around the
planet) there will be some excellent business opportunities for
some lucrative ventures and profits. interesting investment
possibilities. surely you will keep us informed of any future
developments so we can invest wisely as you have done for so long.
>There are many issues here. I'm not advocating murder markets, just noting
>that they provide an easy to understand and fairly "pure" example. If it
>can be done with murders for hire, it can be done with nearly anything.

right, <wink wink>

oh well, thanks for the entertainment. usually you have to go
to a theater to get the "chills up the spine" effect. kinda slick
one can get it in cyberspace.  you're right, this cyberspace stuff
has a lot of possibilities.

On Sat, 18 May 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> an interesting thesis, quite revealing. "the mafia is fulfilling a 
> valid market purpose. the killings & violence are just minor secondary
> issues."  I believe in contrast I would define the mafia exactly
> the opposite. the violence and terror is the key part of the mafia agenda.
> the activities they involve themselves in are secondary to promoting
> the basic agenda of obtaining money in any way possible. how can you

	Replace "mafia" with government, and "money" with power/control.  

> what amazes me about people who tend to have a warped mindset is that
> they think new technology, such as cyberspace, creates a new morality.
> suddenly murdering, violence, drug dealing, or whatever are supposedly
> thrust into some new reality in which old rules no longer apply.
> you and Jim Bell are unbelievably similar, as much as either of you
> would hate to admit it. its just a cloak, in my opinion, for trying
> to evade culpability. the ultimate utopia for some on this list would
> be a world in which they can be held accountable for absolutely nothing,
> by absolutely no one. "anarchy" is as good a word as our reality can
> come close to, although I believe such a reality would be far more
> sinister than that adjective connotes.

	Who says a _new_ morality? Maybe it is just a wider expresion of
an already extant morality. If you will accept the defination of Murder
being "immoral killing", then most people really don't have a problem
with killing. They just draw the line between murder and killing in
different places. To me, killing is justified in 2 circumstances. 1) If
the [man animal]s threat potential exceeds a certain limit (variable) or
2) food/warmth is needed and will be derived from said killing. To kill
randomly or indiscrimantely, wether man or animal is Murder (i.e. immoral
killing) to me this _does_ include trophy hunting, but not if you utilize
the animal for food etc.
	Where humans are concerned, killing them for food is rarely an
issue, but they often present some sort of threat potential. Certain
pepole in government approach this threat potential. Thus, to me, killing
them isn't immoral, but it could _legally_ (i.e. a different defination)
be murder. 

	As far as I am concerned there really is no difference between the
government and the mafia. Both use the same threat to accomplish their
ends, the Mafia is just more honest about it. Both suck. Out loud. The
mafia just tends to be better run, and less invasive personally until you
violate their rules.  

> think about it really hard, TCM. work out those difficult problems
> associated with trying to kill people and get away with it, using
> new sexy advances in technology and theory. you

	Why do you need new technology? The old stuff works just great.
You just need the new stuff to hide you from the feds. 

> maybe talk to Jim Bell some more. perhaps
> eventually you will perfect the method of perpetrating the perfect
> killing!! I really do admire you, because killing people without
> getting caught is surely a great unrecognized art, and one of the
> most unappreciated and misunderstood.

	Happens all the time. 

> something that has only been a dream to the blighted
> wretches prior to our glorious new phases of cyberspatial technology, 
> which makes human morality completely obsolete.

	I am getting the impression that this last sentence was a little
sarcastic? 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com