It’s a good point about scalability.

And I agree with calculating trust scores. Trust ultimately isn’t binary: Alice may trust Bob to maintain a list, but she may trust Charlie more than Bob.

But we have to keep in mind the point nostr:npub1t0nyg64g5vwprva52wlcmt7fkdr07v5dr7s35raq9g0xgc0k4xcsedjgqv makes and that I wrote about[1], which is that follow != trust.

Also, there are an infinite number of types of trust. Alice may trust Bob to maintain a bots list but not to maintain some other list. Trust is contextual.

And trust scores (as well as other types of scores) need a “confidence” component. Alice may think Charlie is 5X smarter than Bob in some given context, but her assessment may be based on scant data (low confidence) or it may be based on lots of data (high confidence). This is how Curated Lists currently works [2].

And to address the problem that bots cost (basically) zero: the default trust score for unvetted accounts should be an adjustable parameter. If sybil attacks are a problem, set the default trust score to zero. If they’re not, adjust the default score accordingly. Curated Lists currently has this as an adjustable parameter in the control panel [3].

[1] https://github.com/wds4/DCoSL/blob/main/dips/coreProtocol/02.md

[2] https://github.com/wds4/pretty-good/blob/main/appDescriptions/curatedLists/exampleListCurationGrapevine.md

[3] https://github.com/wds4/pretty-good/blob/main/appDescriptions/curatedLists/screenshots.md

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.