4 ms·

Basically, centralization is needed for deleting fakes, viruses, wrongly labeled stuff. Totally decentralized approach will have all the negatives KaZaA had in

• zwetan 12y ago
  a crowd funded approach could work to filter out "bad content". Same way as here on HN, people could vote (plus or minus) to help rank the content.
  • seabee 12y ago
    You'd have to mitigate against the Sybil attack. Crowd funding is one way (ironic since I think you meant crowdsourced?) but as we know from SEO optimisation, all that does is force you to pay to get your spam/malware promoted.
• Pxtl 12y ago
  Decentralized with quality control would be a hard but interesting problem. You could do upvotes/downvotes using cryptographic signatures use a little web-based authority to let people know whose signatures are reputable.
  • rdrey 12y ago
    I've been thinking about this problem, too. (Reputation in a decentralised & anonymous web.) What would stop someone from creating fake users? They could easily form a realistic 'social network' over time, giving them some legitimacy. Together a large number of fake users can defeat any form of voting / quality control. I find this stuff very interesting, let me know if I'm missing an obvious approach.
    • Pxtl 12y ago
      Well, obviously PGP has the whole "web of trust" thing but that's a bit hard to use. You can use crypto to "sign" things, so simply "signing" your upvotes and downvotes attaches a person to a vote. Then you let users upvote and downvote other users building a web of trust and a black-list. Signed-upvotes and downvotes would get passed around in the swarm itself as content. The hard part is the new-user bootstrap. They need a starting list of trusted people - as they pull down information from the swarm, they get a good picture of the "web of trust". Then they can look for signed upvotes or downvotes on any content they're researching - that is, instead of just looking for the latest Game of Thrones vid, the system also looks for all upvotes and downvotes about each particular copy of the latest Game of Thrones vid and compares it against the user's personal "web of trust" to know which votes are respectable. The user sees this as just "here's the most popular copy". Of course, passing around millions of upvotes and downvotes P2P would not be an easy problem.
      • rdrey 12y ago
        Thanks for the reply. This sounds a little like the page-rank algorithm. :)
    • icebraining 12y ago
      What stops someone from creating fake users on TPB, though?
  • patrickk 12y ago
    Maybe a vote weighting that gradually gets heavier, the more honest your account is measured - you are observed upvoting good content, and flagging spam or viruses (imagine if the top HN commenters votes counted more than regular commenters...)? And rapid banning for those who upvote spam. Maybe you unlock additional feaures (like HNs downvote ability as you level up with karma). It might create a "race to the top" if you published a "karma list" of the top accounts... sort of like HN has with the leaders list https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders
    • Pxtl 12y ago
      By whom? Remember, we're talking decentralized. In Gnutella and the like there is no authority. So if you want to take the Pirate Bay approach of providing a small authoritative list of "trusted moderators" through the web and have all the users use that filter, you have to keep it simple so that it can be easily replicated if the web-component gets taken down. Complicating the web/authority component means mirroring it and resurrecting it becomes hard.
    • darkmighty 12y ago
      The problem with those is always going to be sybil attacks: anyone can create tons of accounts and upvote themselves. Even cross-verification can be defeated: you just make a small network that upvotes each other in some obfuscated manner. I think there are only two long term solutions: - Introducing some kind of proof of work -- e.g. you do work to downvote/upvote; - Some very "localized" reputation -- e.g. you trust the friends of your friends more. Those ideas are behind the Bitcoin protocol and the Web of Trust, respectively. In this case each would have it's problems: proof of work is inefficient by design and needs a good hash function not to be exploited; local reputation by design makes it hard to find new/unrelated content.
      • Pxtl 12y ago
        I don't think "proof of work" works here because upvoting/downvoting content needs to be cheap... how do you make it expensive for a dedicated malicious force but cheap for legitimate ratings? Proof-of-work as a sort of "sign-on" to enable propagating a new "account"? That is, you need to have 1 Ghz-hour of wasted computation in order to introduce a new cryptographic hash into the network as a sort of "payment to create an account"? Again, a dedicated spammer could have a machine farming accounts 24/7 while this "payment" to create an account would be frustratingly expensive to a new user.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    It's not entirely implausible that authorities might attack the certificate provider. It's a single point of failure... the MPAA decides to fuck with it, gets them shut down, and suddenly no one can filter comments anymore?
    • Pxtl 12y ago
      Point, but that's a much smaller system to mirror. It can be static. You could bundle a cert list into the client, even.
• DonHopkins 12y ago
  What do you mean was the worse negative: downloading an exe, or downloading The Matrix? ;)