4 ms·
> In a distributed system of the kind I propsed above, if you got a spam message you wpuld reduce your trust in those who transitively approved the source of th
by zinekeller 4y ago
> In a distributed system of the kind I propsed above, if you got a spam message you wpuld reduce your trust in those who transitively approved the source of the message, immediately.
I won't think too deeply if your solution works theoretically, but in reality in our imperfect world most people would just choose to outsource the job to the point that we're back to the email problem. Majority of people liked Gmail - majority chosed Gmail and spammers galore we have. Even Mastodon is not resistant to centralization despite their efforts to be decentralized - most wouldn't bother to set up their server and so a lot ends up signing up to mastodon.social.
- TakeBlaster16 4y agoParent's idea is called Web of Trust and it does work, but it doesn't have wide adoption for exactly this reason. For the average person it's too much work to curate their network, or to "debug" the chain of trust that let some spam slip by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
- impossiblefork 4y agoYes, although I imagine continuous connection weights and for the trust to be based on upvotes and downvotes on the public comments of others, not something for cryptography or private messages.