Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

bluesky - Re: Think cash

bluesky AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael J Freedman <mfreed AT MIT.EDU>
  • To: "Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems" <bluesky AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Think cash
  • Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:21:10 -0500


At 09:18 PM 3/8/2001 -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Make the problems too hard, and your false negatives go way up. Make the
>> problems too each, and I'll write an automated simulator that'll convince
>> most of them. Your false positives go up. Throw some machine learning in
>> there? Then you get away from the "user-interaction" model and you added
>> lots of complexity.
>
>This is the nice thing about the "reflected turing test" approach, it is
>a difficult test, but the computer doesn't really have to do the testing
>(although it does have to arrange things carefully).
>
>
>> When you aren't formalizing the problem -- like hash cash, client puzzles,
>> Naor/Dwork's paying for processing -- you aren't establishing complexity
>> classes, in any sense, for the issues at hand.
>
>I am not sure what you mean here, but it sounds like you are saying that
>there is no point in speculation. If that is the case, how do you ever
>think of anything original or interesting?

What I just meant is that these other solutions are based on computational
problems that are accepted as "hard" (assuming that one-way functions
exist).

When you start requiring user interaction in a different manner, you start
added a lot of uncertainty into your models. Various sociological effects
come up that may be much less predictable. You're okay if your system
users understand what it's trying to do, but if this is made for the
average end-user (I think that's a goal of a lot of p2p systems), I'd try
to do the following:

tcsh% ./ run-bot "c00ld00d"
tcsh% [c00ld00d launched...]
tcsh% [c00ld00d finds user "Newbie"]

c00ld00d: sends you [Newbie] a message: "Hey!!! How r u?!? can u click
OK for me and i'll click OK for u? Cool? THX!!!!!"


>> >None the less, at least this suggests that a robust think-cash mechanism
>> >is a possibility. As the threat of malicious attacks on the Internet get
>> >more and more serious, people may be forced to adopt a mechanism such as
>> >this.
>>
>> I fear "robust" is something that hardly applies.
>
>Why not? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is
>impossible. Freenet showed me that.

I apologize if I came across too strongly. I think what Freenet is trying
to achieve is really good, and that a number of really smart people are
working towards similar ends. One of the whole reasons for this mailing
lists is to discuss our thoughts.

The only reason I brought up these points is to try and emphasize some
problems in building complex systems. It's hard. I think we are all aware
of that.

I think we're starting to see some second systems-type effects: we're
trying to layer handwaved, complex solutions over handwaved, complex
systems. It's always been an endemic problem with system design. =)

Hopefully, we can find some good answers to some of these hard problems.

Thanks,
--mike




-----
"Not all those who wander are lost." mfreed AT mit.edu









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page