A New Digital Currency Whose Value Is Based on Your Reputation
wired.com
wired.com
Edit: it should be possible to write an app that works only locally on the phone via p2p sync, with no central server, that collects public signatures from friend-of-a-friend wallets, that can provide a decent reach if there were ever a critical mass of users. Opening the possibility to have a functioning trust network without needing everyone to see everyone's coins.
Is there any compensation for closed loops in the economy? What would the risk of false positives look like?
I think there is something problematic about those stories, mostly because they insist on making reputation into a single scalar value.
So key handling is totally one of those things I'd love to outsource. Actually please let me outsource as much of of the crypto as possible, I don't want to be inventing things.
To that end http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/ looks like a reasonable start. I've also been reading http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-cookbook/ and generally trying to get a sense of the least opinionated path I can take.
Luckily our iOS lead at Couchbase is experienced writing apps that use cryptographic signing, so he's written up the beginnings of a spec that we'll likely evolve: https://github.com/couchbase/couchbase-lite-ios/wiki/Signed-...
If you want to join in the implementation nitty gritty feel free to start a thread in our group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mobile-couchbase
I've always used my own application development goals to find interesting directions at Couchbase so this project is just an example of how we work.
in our system (which we are calling dewdrop - https://github.com/neyer/dewdrop - still very much a work in progress) you don't pass coins around; you make statements. you can make statements of the form 'i trust person X', and then statements made by person X are given more weight for you, as are statements by those X trusts, etc.
in our system, key revocation would be just another statement. if i say "hey this is mark, my phone was captured at this time and these N transactions are invalid", my friends - if they believe me - can say 'i believe he is telling the truth here.' everyone who trusts us will then ignore statements made from that address during that time period. the statements will still be on the network, but people who trust me and my friends will not believe i made them.
because there is no transfer of coins - just statements that anyone can make - there's no issue of 'do we really need to revoke the key?' people who trust me, and who trust my friends, will see those statements as having been revoked; people who don't trust me will need to decide for themselves on this.
Might be a good fit for your project.
Say I'm into motorcycles, and I am a regular at motorcycle-forums.com where I dispense helpful advice on everything from tire pressure to tappets. Over time I deservedly acquire a reputation as That Helpful Guy, and the grateful votes of other users accumulate. One day I decide I want a new bike, and head over to the marketplace subforum to purchase one. Turns out that Alica has just the bike I want! Naturally I want to use my accrued Biker Points to get a discount.
Now, in a closed economy. Alice might be delighted to have my BP - she could trade them for other goods and services with other bikers, and there might even be a social value in having dealt with me (a good few specialist websites maintain informal 'trusted buyer/seller' lists which saves members money vs. low-trust high-fee markets like eBay). But what if Alice is done with biking and just wants to get rid of her Vroomatic 5000 so she can take up windsurfing or something? My BP will be of little use to her on the ocean wave, and there may not be enough transitional activity between the Biker and surfer communitites to establish a maingful rate of exchange, so instead you end up with a bunch of shady pseudocurrencies, sort of like penny stocks.
One way I can see it working is if quality websites charge a small joining or membership fee and a portion of that constitutes an initial pool of points. Alternatively, a portion of ad revenue might be convertible into points, as those members who consistently make valuable and informative contributions are a key part of the site's draw, so it makes sense for the operator to subsidize the most 'productive' members.
I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick here, and you only meant to substitute reputation for cryptographic proof-of-work, but I'm guessing form your slides about inequality and different concepts of value that you're looking to examine the notion of wealth in more subjective contexts, rather than just authentication.
Have been tinkering with something similar: https://galapag.us/ I don't have all that much time to work on it but I think by next year I'm going to go back to spending time working on it instead of general compsci/coding nightly training.
I think this is a key factor. Although I imagined some site-based scores for simplicity (like HN karma) they have the disadvantage of being siloed, so you'd be trading one virtual currency for a pile of competing ones, with all the comflicting imperatives of commercial activity). It's better that it be adjusted per user, and maybe other transactions weighted according to mutual perceptions.
I proposed something similar here a few years back when the site was beset with voting rings but it was deemed too complex - and it was, for a site. What I (selfishly) wanted was a filter that would float stories to the top based on whether they were voted up by people I respect. So if my friends Alice and Bob voted a story up, I'd see it prioritized, but something promoted by Carol and Dave would be discounted.
When the video of my talk is up you'll see that comes up in the Q/A.
Part of the reason I'm being late-binding about the technical implementation is because I know I haven't come up with anything exactly new.
I've been working a long time to solve the database sync problem, and now that we shipped, I'm thinking about what we can build on top of it. Which particular key scheme we use is of secondary importance, the important thing for me is exposing crypto primitives as part of a distributed database.
I would have called it LikeCoin. My starting point is that likes have some value. A baker might give you some bread in exchange for a Facebook like. However, that would only work once or twice - the more you spend it, the more it loses in value. On the other hand, the more followers you have, the more valuable your likes are.
I just thought that could be modeled into a coin without the dreaded "double spending" risk - double spending would be no problem, because everybody could create as many "coins" as they want anyway. But they would have to worry about inflation if they create too many coins...
If it does take off, it will probably start small. It’s not hard to picture groups of friends using it to create custom coins based on inside jokes. Anderson says there would actually be a big benefit in the system being used in this way, since it would get people to create and maintain public encryption keys, setting the stage for more interesting uses later on. “Everything has to start out as a joke these days,” he says. “Otherwise people won’t take them seriously.”
Seems like you have some duplicative redundancy going on there...
Even though you have a great point there, snarkiness is usually frowned upon in Hacker News.
I'd also like to point out that, even if it's called a Law, it isn't a Law (especially since there's an intent to challenge our notion of currency here).
Hey!
Give it a pass; the Market Economics Fairy has been with us here for a long time, and usually has some insightful things to say ;).
Sincerely,
Random HN'er who likes that style.
One more for you, something I find rational: http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm
Edit: After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_one_price I think I'll have to reflect on arbitrage in the system, but it's cool to see that it has a stabilizing effect.
Current "markets" are distorted for various reasons. Historically, broken markets have been fixed by non-computational means.
If yes, then how do you protect yourself from folks like Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff, Mel Gibson, Rob Ford, OJ Simpson... and so forth?