zlacker

[return to "Vouch"]
1. stepha+5b[view] [source] 2026-02-08 05:45:38
>>chwtut+(OP)
IMO: trust-based systems only work if they carry risk. Your own score should be linked to the people you "vouch for" or "denounce".

This is similar to real life: if you vouch for someone (in business for example), and they scam them, your own reputation suffers. So vouching carries risk. Similarly, if you going around someone is unreliable, but people find out they actually aren't, your reputation also suffers. If vouching or denouncing become free, it will become too easy to weaponize.

Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway.

◧◩
2. ashton+ed[view] [source] 2026-02-08 06:16:18
>>stepha+5b
> Then again, if this is the case, why would you risk your own reputation to vouch for anyone anyway.

Good reason to be careful. Maybe there's a bit of an upside to: if you vouch for someone who does good work, then you get a little boost too. It's how personal relationships work anyway.

----------

I'm pretty skeptical of all things cryptocurrency, but I've wondered if something like this would be an actually good use case of blockchain tech…

◧◩◪
3. HumanO+Zf[view] [source] 2026-02-08 07:01:42
>>ashton+ed
If we want to make it extremely complex, wasteful, and unusable for 99% of people, then sure, put it on the blockchain. Then we can write tooling and agents in Rust with sandboxes created via Nix to have LLMs maintain the web of trust by writing Haskell and OCaml.
◧◩◪◨
4. tempac+NJ1[view] [source] 2026-02-08 19:31:32
>>HumanO+Zf
Well done, you managed to tie Rust, Nix, Haskell and OCaml to "extremely complex, wasteful, and unusable"
[go to top]