Finally I don't need to always be seeing the "Introduce Yourself" thread.


Could we perhaps omit the "Show new replies to your posts" if you have the option to "automatically watch" set on (like the other poster I no longer need "Show new replies to your posts" and would prefer to to actually see it now)?

Okay - thanks - I get it now - and yes I think that this will be of great benefit for the development of other clients that sit above bitcoind (or just for "power" users of the RPC interface).

I think you misunderstand me - a *local* HTTP UI (which is not dependent upon internet bandwidth/remote servers) is not likely to be noticeably slower than a GUI one unless you are doing some *very* intensive graphical operations.


I think I did read something about a system written in Javascript (so also Web UI I guess) that works with (or implements?) FIX (if you Google around perhaps you can find the guy who has developed it).


Good to know.

This looks interesting - just one question after reading this document (as the word "change" does not appear in it at all) - will it be also possible to specify the *change* address with such "raw transactions" (in perhaps the sendrawtx command itself)?

Nice and clear explanation - one question (to the mods) - is there some technical reason why the colored *half* cannot apply to less than 5 coins (especially in regards to donators)?

(I think it might be just a bit more helpful if members who have only posted a few times but did donate BTC don't sport 5 coins)

Would you consider a web UI?


Is this system supposed to be working with existing APIs for providing the above?


The certificate for this site seems to be out of date (according to my version of FF).


Cheers,

Ian.

Publishing DB backups (minus sensitive information) is a step in the right direction but if we were to build a blockchain tx approach then it could provide a common protocol that could be used by different rating applications so that in the end users could pick and choose which specific ratings they care about (whilst also being certain that the data hasn't been altered after initial publication).

EDIT: Ooops I forgot which thread I was posting this in - the above is relevant to a rating system rather than a generalised DB.

I am only proposing trust tx's to be in a/the blockchain - the measurements of them would be entirely up to software apps that read the blockchain (and different apps could have very different ways of measuring it).

Am not quite sure why having public DB records of trust votes == elitism. The idea I had in mind was simply a system of publishing specific rating tx's but nothing to do with how they are interpreted (so different apps could take the raw data and draw very different conclusions depending on how they want to do that).

I think that this idea is something that could be very useful for creating a web-of-trust system where all "rating" entries become a part of the "public" DB (I made a suggestion along these lines to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87012).

Of course tx fees need to be taken into account and there is always the issue of increasing the blockchain size (although I think Satoshi Dice has done more in that regards than this probably would initially).

I did propose that perhaps an alt-chain (maybe RTC = rate coins) could be something to consider.

For sure this is not going to be a trivial exercise but I do think that the benefit of a low (towards zero) trust mechanism has much more chance of widespread acceptance than any other method (and would be happy to contribute towards such an effort if others were interested to pursue it).

 

The idea is to use specific addresses (owned by for example yourself) for receiving and sending ratings as two tx's. The first between the "rater" and yourself (which as explained in the other thread includes a CRC in the amount so where it is later sent can be verified) and the second between yourself and the "rated" party.

Actually the system is really quite simple (but maybe I didn't express that so well in the other thread).

The point is that any trust system where the data is *privately* held automatically now has a fundamental weakness (this is after all why we like the fact that Bitcoin is the way it is).

One idea I was thinking about the other day with regards to reputation systems would be the idea of recording ratings and other information as micro transactions (with the numeric amounts actually being encoded information) in the block chain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87339.0).

The point being that then your DB doesn't need to be trusted/relied upon to hold rating (or other) information.

Am interested!

A couple of refinements - although I guess it's looking a lot like I'm talking to myself now.

By using the second decimal to indicate both a rating "area" and whether to rate positively or negatively (and putting the negatives after the positives in order to make it more expensive to rate negatively) then the CRC modulus can be extended to 6 digits (so now only 1 in a million chance of a "birthday" clash).


Although this could be useful over Bitcoin itself I am now beginning to think some sort of alt-chain might actually be preferable to accomplish this idea as then far more information could be stored with each tx.

After playing around with vanitygen and spending a while looking for "available" vanity addresses by searching blockchain.info I discovered that already a very large number of plain english words have single tx's with a 0.00000001 BTC balance.

To get a good idea of what I'm referring to take a look at the following tx:

http://blockchain.info/tx-index/1009186/4e7b84a7ee19b7ea9f2d69fcb2734fb096cb012b413f8897b4f42871b225faba

So it seems to me that someone went rather gung ho with vanitygen to try and own all the simple "firstbit" addresses they can possibly get. But what really can you do with them?

(maybe I can expect to see small amounts appearing in my wallet from these addresses after this post)

Actually after some more thought perhaps this could also include sending a CRC32 or similar of the GPG proof letter (which would be published on the WoT website so others could copy and verify it).

Does anyone else see any potential value in keeping WoT information in the blockchain (or perhaps this would be viewed as creating more bloat)?

Hopefully this hasn't already been brought up in the similar named thread already but I thought it might be worthwhile to start a new thread to discuss the merits of designing a meta-reputation protocol that works via tx's in the blockchain itself rather than discussing a specific WoT solution.

The following are some basic principles:

1) Each WoT system would have its own specific Bitcoin address.

e.g. 1SampleWoT

2) Each member joining the WoT system provides a single address that will be used for that system (and which most likely would also be the same address used for all other such systems).

e.g. 1SampleMember

3) In order to activate a new "account" a member sends (from their specifically chosen address) a small amount to the particular WoT address.

1SampleMember -> 0.09 -> 1SampleWoT

4) If the user provides sufficient proof to the WoT owner (such as GPG sig with signed copy of the user address) then a tx containing a very specific amount is then sent from the WoT to the user's account address to indicate it has been activated.

e.g. 1SampleWoT -> 0.00000011 -> 1SampleMember (where the last digit is either 0 or 1 to say added or removed and previous digits are reserved to identify the "type" of proof).

If say some other kind of relevant item/document was accepted by the WoT then this would have another specific amount:
1SampleWoT -> 0.00000021 -> 1SampleMember

and if this proof was later to be rescinded then:
1SampleWoT -> 0.00000020 -> 1SampleMember

5) Once the member has met the minimum requirements to use the WoT they would be able to create a "rating" record for another member (which they could locate either via the other user's specific address or by say their email address using the actual WoT application).

In order for the rating record to be accepted the member would next send a very specific amount from their address to the WoT address (where presumably this amount would be copied and pasted from the WoT application). One possible way for this amount to be determined is as follows:

Take the CRC32 of the member being rated's address as a decimal value then take mod 100,000 and divide by 10,000,000 and add a rating multiplier and min. fee.

if the allowed "multiplier" values were:
.00000001=-8
.00000002=-4
.00000003-=2
.00000004=-1
.00000005=+1
.00000006=+2
.00000007=+4
.00000008=+8

then you might end up with an amount looking something like:

1SampleMember -> 0.05123455 -> 1SampleWoT

(with 0.05 being the min. fee required to send a rating, 12345 being the modulus of a CRC-32 of the destination address and 5 meaning +1)

Assuming that the details are correct then the WoT would then create a tx to the destination members address as follows:

1SampleWoT -> 0.00000005 --> 1OtherMember

The big advantage of this idea is that all WoT actions are audit-able through the blockchain itself allowing different software implementations to be written that can perform all their calculations (in very different ways if desired) without having to rely upon any 3rd party DB.

Payment received (thanks) and sure if you have any problems with it just PM me.