[p2p-hackers] Bounty for Open Source Trust System

[Emin Gun Sirer]

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. 

Best,
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
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>