You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ideally, we'd want to pop up a modal before Honouring any Proposal, or Accepting any Forgiveness.
This modal must explain that you balance is equivalent to your creditworthiness (higher balance == less creditworthy) and that your transaction history is equivalent to your trustworthiness.
Therefore, you don't want to honour proposals that put you too much in debt, nor do you want to honour proposals from accounts that have 'strange' transactions in their history. You also don't want to just accept Forgiveness from a random account (even if they offer a lot of forgiveness) because this would make your own account look suspicious.
This raises the question: "what is strange?" That is, what kinds of transactions in a given history make an account "suspicious".
My hunch is that it is largely contextual. There are some big giveaways though:
Taking on large debt only to forgive large amounts to a "botnet" like shape of inter-related accounts (i.e. dense interconnections, not many connections to other accounts outside the net)
Sudden forgiveness of a large debt from an account that the forgiven account has not interacted with before.
That said, how do "botnets" differ from local trade in a tight network of friends? Is there a way to reliably discern between the two. This gets us to:
Large transaction volume relative to the rest of the network (local groups are not likely to exchange more than once or twice a day at most).
So, in building our "trust model", we're looking at anomalous transactions (where anomalous == sudden change in relative magnitude of transaction size, either honouring - taking on debt - or forigiving - removing the debt of others) and anomalous transaction volumes.
For a v1, I think that simply putting up a modal which displays the transaction history of the proposer of the forgiver, before anyone either honours or accepts a given transaction is a good start. However, we will definitely need to do more to make it easy and intuitive for people to decide upon trustworthiness when interacting via HON.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ideally, we'd want to pop up a modal before Honouring any Proposal, or Accepting any Forgiveness.
This modal must explain that you balance is equivalent to your creditworthiness (higher balance == less creditworthy) and that your transaction history is equivalent to your trustworthiness.
Therefore, you don't want to honour proposals that put you too much in debt, nor do you want to honour proposals from accounts that have 'strange' transactions in their history. You also don't want to just accept Forgiveness from a random account (even if they offer a lot of forgiveness) because this would make your own account look suspicious.
This raises the question: "what is strange?" That is, what kinds of transactions in a given history make an account "suspicious".
My hunch is that it is largely contextual. There are some big giveaways though:
That said, how do "botnets" differ from local trade in a tight network of friends? Is there a way to reliably discern between the two. This gets us to:
So, in building our "trust model", we're looking at anomalous transactions (where anomalous == sudden change in relative magnitude of transaction size, either honouring - taking on debt - or forigiving - removing the debt of others) and anomalous transaction volumes.
For a v1, I think that simply putting up a modal which displays the transaction history of the proposer of the forgiver, before anyone either honours or accepts a given transaction is a good start. However, we will definitely need to do more to make it easy and intuitive for people to decide upon trustworthiness when interacting via HON.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: