[p2p-hackers] Bounty for Open Source Trust System
Emin Gun Sirer
egs+p2phackers at cs.cornell.edu
Tue Apr 11 21:00:32 UTC 2006
Let me interject two factoids to make sure no myths are propagated:
- The current Credence implementation uses explicit feedback. There is
no reason why you couldn't use implicit indications of trust, if
your application had such indicators. It turns out that there are
no such good implicit indicators in p2p filesharing - sharing a file
is not a good indicator that the user would vouch for that file. Our
paper has the details.
- Credence computes a "very multidimensional" trust metric for each
participant. Unlike Google's global page rank, Credence conceptually
computes a separate trust metric for each peer from the point of
view of every other peer. So X might rank high and be trustworthy
for Y, but not for Z.
Gun (& Kevin).
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 14:31 -0700, coderman wrote:
> On 4/11/06, Bob Harris <bob.harris.spamcontrol at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Give the bounty to the Credence folks, they already did this. And from what
> > I understand it's backwards compatible with Gnutella. A trust overlay
> > on top of a p2p overlay.
> credence requires explicit user feedback and provides a very one
> dimensional view of reputation. the drawbacks to this approach (while
> still much better than nothing) are well documented.
> i'm much more fond of implicit feedback based on user interaction with
> the resources they obtain (see feedbackfs in the archives) which gives
> a richer view of reputation between peers. (for example, grouping you
> with peers who provide not only honest meta data, but also relevant
> resources based on your preferences / history)
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
More information about the P2p-hackers