1995-09-11 - Re: question about reputation

Header Data

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 6f303af0d91a34fdf7d2ad7dadcae35d020f0d89e336ae255b9692b276e77f7d
Message ID: <9509110207.AA25237@cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950910164221.8377C-100000@eskimo.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-09-11 02:07:44 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 19:07:44 PDT

Raw message

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 95 19:07:44 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: question about reputation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950910164221.8377C-100000@eskimo.com>
Message-ID: <9509110207.AA25237@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Adam Shostack writes:
# Good question, but a quick modification allows for effective
# bootstrapping.  If I want to start consulting for Amalgameted
# Consolodated, I can offer them a 10 free questions deal to bootstrap
# things with.  Mallet can only cheat if my offer was broadcast.

Wei Dai writes:
> This scheme doesn't quite work.  (Let's call Amalgameted Bob, to keep
> names short.)  Bob can create a new, unlinkable pseudonym and give the same
> offer to Carol under the new pseudonym.  Then, Bob acts as Mallet and
> passes messages back and forth between Alice and Carol.  

If all Alice's prospective customers are also resellers on the side, then I
agree that she has a problem. But how realistic is a market scenario in which
a new supplier cannot positively identify some legitimate end consumers of a
product or service ?  (I'm ignoring cases in which the market for the
product or service is only just being forged.)  This strikes me as rather
implausible, although I don't claim to have devoted a great deal of thought
to it.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>




Thread