On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
> I know trying to educate you to the ways of the world is a futile
> effort, but I can't resist sometimes. How does my great wonderful
> reputation reduce the cost of doing business with me?
Ask your bank with regard to loans, for example. Once I got t
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 07:54:43PM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
| > | Just to sort of thrash things a bit, in a capital markets
| > | transaction, an exchange isn't such a hard thing to do, in the
| > | sense that a secondary bearer-form asset transaction (primary is
| > | like an IPO, or, for ca
On 3 Dec 2001, at 13:44, Ken Brown wrote:
> All the discussion about certificates of speaking Navajo or whatever are
> slightly beside the point. If personal reputation, as such, has a market
> value it isn't the money you'd get by selling the reputation, because as
> everyone else already pointe
Tim May wrote:
[...]
> >
> > We're not disagreeing. By a "single" value I meant a universally
> > agreed upon value.
>
> If there is a "universally agreed upon value" for something, and someone
> values it differently, is it still "universal"?
>
> Nope.
>
> What there may be are market-cleari
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 6:17 PM -0500 on 12/2/01, Adam Shostack wrote:
> In which case, you might be better off transferring the asset,
> rather than the nym.
Pretty much. Except that a nym may hold more than one asset, and
might be easier to transfer than all the other stuff is
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:30:09PM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|
| At 1:19 PM -0500 on 12/1/01, Adam Shostack wrote:
|
|
| > Right. Now the seller has the cash, and the buyer has nothing.
| > The seller has lost only the future value of the nym, which was
On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Our main interest in reputations is that the value of
> someone's reputation will stop them from doing bad things.
Actually not, most folks use reputations to do away with security checks
they would use othewise. It's a sellers cost cutting measure.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Petro wrote:
> Both are in the business of buying and selling reputations.
Actually they're in the business of buying and selling 'impressions', not
reputations.
--
Day by day th
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > For reputation to have a single well defined value it
> > > is necessary but not sufficient that there be a market
> > > in reputations; it must be a COMMODITIZED market.
James A. Donald:
> > Something has a single well defined value to its
> > possessor with
At 08:18 AM 12/1/01 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 30 Nov 2001, at 22:05, Petro wrote:
>> What makes you think a reputation cannot be bought and sold?
>> Ever hear of Public Relations firms? Politicians?
>> Both are in the business of buying and selling reputations.
>>
>
>Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 6:09 PM -0500 on 12/1/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> I expect that "reputation" is something very close to "goodwill",
> which is a polite accounting fiction to deal with the fact that the
> calculated "worth", of an asset as carried on the books of a
> purcha
At 1:46 PM -0800 on 12/1/01, Tim May wrote:
> What there may be are market-clearing prices, in various markets and at
> various times, but this has nothing to do with "universally agreed-upon
> values."
Amen.
The "worth" of anything is what the market pays for it. Period.
I expect that "reput
On Saturday, December 1, 2001, at 01:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> --
>> On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this,
>>> particularly since my original statement was
On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this,
> > particularly since my original statement was much weaker
> > than it could have been. For reputation to have a single
>
--
On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this,
> particularly since my original statement was much weaker
> than it could have been. For reputation to have a single
> well defined value it is necessary but not sufficient that
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 1:19 PM -0500 on 12/1/01, Adam Shostack wrote:
> Right. Now the seller has the cash, and the buyer has nothing.
> The seller has lost only the future value of the nym, which was
> presumably accounted for in the price. The seller loses no "real"
> reputat
Right. Now the seller has the cash, and the buyer has nothing. The
seller has lost only the future value of the nym, which was presumably
accounted for in the price. The seller loses no "real" reputation,
because the nym can't be tied back to the is-a-person seller. The
buyer, meanwhile, is ou
On 30 Nov 2001, at 22:05, Petro wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 07:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Even this is not a scalar. Since reputation cannot be bought
> > and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is
> > false.
>
> What makes you think
At 02:26 PM 11/30/2001 -0800, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> > Following which the buyer posts all the signed emails between self and
> > seller detailing the fraudulent transaction.
>
>Worthless, as all of those messages could have been forged. Or did you
>mean to say that they had been dated by a thi
Not the messages signed by the purchaser of the Nym, as those would not be
signed with the Nym's signature.
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :aren't security. A |share them, y
On 30 Nov 2001, at 13:34, Sunder wrote:
> Simple. Once the buyer has the keys she issues an email saying "I'm
> changing my keys, here's the new public key" and signs it with the old key
> - thus proving that the nym's original message was valid, thus
> invalidating the old one. Duh!
>
>
Any
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Sunder wrote:
> Following which the buyer posts all the signed emails between self and
> seller detailing the fraudulent transaction.
Worthless, as all of those messages could have been forged. Or did you
mean to say that they had been dated by a third party timestamping
ser
On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 01:56 PM, Wei Dai wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:58PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
>> Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate,
>> and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message.
>
> I guess we would nee
Following which the buyer posts all the signed emails between self and
seller detailing the fraudulent transaction.
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
\|/ :aren't security. A |share
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 04:28:58PM -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
> Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate,
> and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message.
I guess we would need a distributed public registry of key
change/revocation messages
Following which, Alice pulls out the pre-dated revocation certificate,
and generates confusion as to the validity of Bob's key change message.
Duh, indeed.
Adam
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 01:34:53PM -0500, Sunder wrote:
| Simple. Once the buyer has the keys she issues an email saying "I'm
| chan
Simple. Once the buyer has the keys she issues an email saying "I'm
changing my keys, here's the new public key" and signs it with the old key
- thus proving that the nym's original message was valid, thus
invalidating the old one. Duh!
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 12:14:13PM -0800, Wei Dai wrote:
| On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:53:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > Even this is not a scalar. Since reputation cannot be bought
| > and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is
| > false.
|
| If you own a nym
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:53:02PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Even this is not a scalar. Since reputation cannot be bought
> and sold, the idea that it is worth a specific well defined amount is
> false.
If you own a nym, you can easily sell its reputation. Just give the
private key to th
--
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Wei Dai wrote:
> > But there is a scalar number attached to a person which
> > deserves the name "reputation capital", namely his own
> > judgement of what his reputation is worth.
On 29 Nov 2001, at 18:41, Jim Choate wrote:
> People don't think of themselves as a '5'.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, David Honig wrote:
> And Hitler probably valued his reputation. So what?
Hitler didn't value his reputation, he was Hitler. What he did was
justified. He was an angel among men.
There's a moral in there if you look for it.
--
__
On 29 Nov 2001, at 16:11, Wei Dai wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> But there is a scalar number attached to a person which deserves the name
> "reputation capital", namely his own judgement of what his reputation is
> worth.
Even this is not a scalar. Since r
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Wei Dai wrote:
> But there is a scalar number attached to a person which deserves the name
> "reputation capital", namely his own judgement of what his reputation is
> worth.
What's your number?
People don't think of themselves as a '5'. Even Hitler thought he was
the good
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
> core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
> phrase "reputation capital."
>
> Reputation is an easily understandable concept which explains
At 09:42 PM 11/26/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>Reputation itself is a problem. Past behaviour (toward another) is not a
>reasonable predictor of future behavior (toward myself).
Yes but your past behavior towards this list *is* empirically
a reasonable predictor of the value of your present and
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> Are you saying that governments are providing a valuable service by propping up
> arbitrary prohibitions and thus establish a value system against which we can
> bang our heads ?
You misrepresent, governments don't (in general) make 'arbitrary
prohibit
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, at 03:05PM, Tim May wrote
> | Thus, what is the "reputation of the dollar"? Is it because of foolproof
> | anti-forgery measures? Is it because of the laws of the U.S.? Etc.?
> |
> | No, it is a kind of collective halluc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Declan wrote:
> Sure, one can say: let's just have a complicated reputation space
> (think an array of arrays) for each one of these characteristics. To
> use a silly example:
> * truthtelling [0-255]
> * maturity [0-255]
> * morality [0-
At 03:54 PM 11/26/01 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2001, at 19:30, David Honig wrote:
>>
>> I recently posted how ground squirrels have rep cap.
>>
>
>It was interesting, but unless I misread it (a distinct possibility)
>the squirrels didn't really have something we'd call a reputat
On 25 Nov 2001, at 15:05, Tim May wrote:
> For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
> core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
> phrase "reputation capital."
>
> Reputation is an easily understandable concept which explains a lot
> about
On 25 Nov 2001, at 19:30, David Honig wrote:
> At 03:05 PM 11/25/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
> >For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
> >core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
> >phrase "reputation capital."
>
> I recently posted how gro
On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:28 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Thanks, Tim, for posting an interesting essay. You say:
Thanks for the thanks. It's just a facet of what I've been thinking
about for a long time. I was bored so I just dashed off the piece, more
to help crystallize thoughts
At 08:15 AM 11/26/2001 -0800, David Honig wrote, quoting me:
> >Reputation capital is more valuable a term when describing traits that
> >are less subjective. When dealing with an online ecash bank, you may
> >want truthfulness and reliability and good customer service (for
> >example), which are
At 10:28 AM 11/26/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>It seems to me that reputation capital is a term that has limited
>value when applied to something as subjective as the areas above:
>having an article published in the editorial pages of the Wall Street
>Journal (or the Journal of Socialist Doc
On Sunday, November 25, 2001, at 07:30 PM, David Honig wrote:
> At 03:05 PM 11/25/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>> For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
>> core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
>> phrase "reputation capital."
>
> I recently
At 03:05 PM 11/25/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>For many years some of us have argued strongly for "reputation" as a
>core concept. Someone, perhaps even one of our own, even coined the
>phrase "reputation capital."
I recently posted how ground squirrels have rep cap.
>Reputation is an easily unde
On Sun, Nov 25, at 05:24PM, Morlock Elloi wrote:
| Are you saying that governments are providing a valuable service by propping up
| arbitrary prohibitions and thus establish a value system against which we can
| bang our heads ?
If you got that out of the quote you left in the em
> There is nothing fixed in this world, if you have no boundries set.
> If everything is a belief or expectation, I would have to say that
> some beliefs and some expectations are stronger than others...some
> by orders of magnatude.
Are you saying that governments are providing a valuable servic
On Sun, Nov 25, at 03:05PM, Tim May wrote
| Thus, what is the "reputation of the dollar"? Is it because of foolproof
| anti-forgery measures? Is it because of the laws of the U.S.? Etc.?
|
| No, it is a kind of collective hallucination.
It is not a "Collective hallucination" un
49 matches
Mail list logo
