Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions

m
Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi
(better topic headers, a few more points)
m (Reverted edits by 46.161.9.22 (talk) to last revision by Juboxi)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
===Notes on Practical Issues===
===Notes on Practical Issues===
mmm. as you might have guessed the system for direct voting relies on the vote-challenge-confirmation scheme used by many web based services ie. You get an email that says that "somebody (propably you) voted on these and these issues with your account and to confirm this you have to reply something to this message".  As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.
mmm.  As to the question of if this an adequate level of security will propably remain an disputable issue always, but will not propably crash the whole system due to the fact that people who feel that direct voting is not reliable can choose to view only the indirect votes, which are authenticated by cryptographically strong methods such as GnuPG.


:Never rely on cryptography exclusively.  The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...  
:Never rely on cryptography exclusively.  The April 2000 rebuild of the PGP key tree at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference, in Toronto, was actually signed by Terence and Philip - the two fictional Canadian comedians from South Park...  
Line 114: Line 114:


::Agora also implies markets.  As it is, you are talking about a [[Consumerium Forum]] I think.
::Agora also implies markets.  As it is, you are talking about a [[Consumerium Forum]] I think.
----
It is not necessary to trust anyone completely - one might for instance trust [[Greenpeace]] the most but only to a "0.7" level.  All other organisations could then be trusted to some number proportional to them, but less than 0.7.


:This makes sense only if you choose multiple "trust roots" and place some numeric values for the level of trust. If you choose to trust [[Organisation X]] most, but choose no other organisations then the number you set doesn't matter since all scores will be offset by this value equally???
----
==Reading sessions of strange papers==
==Reading sessions of strange papers==


9,843

edits