[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Economic Model for Key Cracking
At 10:29 PM 8/18/95, Howard Cheng wrote:
>We need to make sure that someone did do the work honestly, but I don't know
>how to check this (other than doing the work yourself to confirm the results,
>but this defeats the whole point of the system). Perhaps we should require
>that people buy the work first, and when they report the results, they get
>the money back + some profits.
The "abstract protocol" that works in many economic transactions is simple:
_spot checks_. That is, random samples. You don't have to do all the work
"Quality Control" (QC) is based on this. The "Inspected By: Foobar" tags on
manufactured items provided traceability/feedback to a manufacturer--a
reputation system, if you will. Lot numbers, seals, etc.
Yes, this is an obvious point, but it's interesting because the "spot
check" is a kind of protocol that is almost like "cut and choose" in its
>Assuming everyone is honest, I am sure many people in businesses
As the Great Leader once said, "Trust, but verify."
There is no reason to make assumptions about honesty: just spot check the
work and downgrade the reputation of anyone who slacks off or is deceitful.
(This "web of distrust," in terms of black marks in reputations, is as
important as the web of trust. The same, really. And yet another reason why
one doesn't want government=root, as they would undoubtedly frown on
anything that was "discriminatory" or "hurtful to the differently abled.")
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] (Got net?) | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."