Oddbean

Reputation Solving the Tragedy of the Commons problem in a decentralized system is challenging, especially when there’s no central authority to enforce rules, restrict usage, or punish individuals who misuse resources. In traditional environments, people usually need to provide something of value—whether it's money, time, or effort—in exchange for access to shared resources. This creates a natural check on overuse. However, in decentralized systems like Nostr, where there’s a desire to keep things open and accessible to all, implementing a payment-based solution can be problematic. Such solutions are often unpopular because they exclude those without the means to pay, which runs counter to the ethos of inclusivity. But there's one resource everyone possesses that could be used as a stake: reputation. The idea is that access to resources can be tied to the reputation of the user. A good reputation allows greater access to shared resources, while a low reputation might limit one's ability to access these resources freely. Reputation acts as a form of currency within the system, but with a key difference—it’s earned through consistent, positive behavior over time, and can be lost quickly if one abuses the system. This asymmetry—where building reputation takes time and effort, but losing it can happen swiftly—creates a strong incentive for users to act responsibly. By linking resource access to reputation, the system can encourage sustainable usage without needing a central authority to enforce rules. In essence, this approach leverages the natural human desire to maintain a good standing within a community. When users know that their actions directly impact their reputation, and by extension, their ability to access resources, they’re more likely to avoid behavior that would harm the network as a whole. This could be a powerful way to address the Tragedy of the Commons in decentralized systems, ensuring that the community self-regulates and preserves the integrity of shared resources. nostr:note138a97epurfkt7kau3sffr3xu4fatt2529pu7pwjhs69hzjjud3yscdfu85 #WoT #WebOfTrust

Yes, it was a simple but sufficient system. Once the digital content was multiplied enough times (copied), the network could handle any load. The initial sharing of just-downloaded parts also helped conserve scarce bandwidth resources. BitTorrent is mostly a pull system, meaning you can't push data onto someone else's computer, unlike Nostr relays. I think this fact limited the need for a reputation system.

I have extended the iris.to Nostr client, into a clone of the site with a reputation system on it (prof of concept). It works, but it is still fairly simple: https://dpeep.com. You can trust people and posts, and the trust network extends 3 degrees deep. You need to create multiple accounts and trust each other to see the effects and the networks of web of trust. I'll write some posts about how the general system works later.

In a network of trust with, say, 100,000 people, it only takes one or a few people to spot the bot and decide to distrust it. Once that happens, the rest of the network gets the signal that the account isn’t trustworthy, and most people won’t even see the spam. Instead of everyone having to individually check if the content is valid, the Web of Trust allows for the community to quickly filter out the bad actors. It’s like crowdsourced spam protection—one or two people deal with it, and the rest benefit from it. #wot #weboftrust #reputation #trust

Not at all! It’s not about being "hidden forever" just because a few people don’t like your posts. In a Web of Trust, trust is subjective. So, if a few people distrust you, it only affects their network and the people who trust them. Your posts would still be visible to others who trust you or those who haven’t built trust with the people who flagged you. It's a decentralized system, so no single opinion or small group can wipe you out across the entire network—your visibility depends on the trust relationships you build.