The Design Problem ¶
In a centralized world, the trust model is simple: all participants have to trust the central authority with their data, e.g. emails, orders, pictures, as well as metadata such as IP addresses and friends’ contacts. On a more fundamental level, participants have to trust the central authority is who they say they are, and that it will connect participants to who they think they’re being connected to. All participants have to put trust in one place.
In a decentralized world, trust can and has to be placed in many different places. In a federated network, participants have to trust many authorities; in a distributed (p2p) network, all participants are equal, and have to be trusted on an individual basis. But deciding the level of trust for all connections to the network individually can sometimes be too taxing for users.
The Design Solution ¶
Trust can be governed by a protocol. For example, the protocol can be generous (trust all by default) or guarded (trust none by default). But these approaches can sometimes be too rigid.
Consider modelling game-theoretic insights on cautious optimism, e.g. trust each node until they violate a rule (“tit for tat”). This means the level of trust to another network participant is based on their past behavior. Depending on the context, this could be: hosting (or not hosting) your data for some period of time, allowing bandwidth use — or on a more social level, being a code-of-conduct-abiding network participant.
- Regular unchoking in BitTorrent
- Secure Scuttlebutt
Why Choose Cautious Optimism? ¶
Trust is more fine-grained than a rigid protocol presumes sometimes; it can be revoked at any moment, and is usually tied to actual behavior.
Best Practice: How to Implement Cautious Optimism ¶
- Make sure that the terms and conditions of network participation are made clear to all users, so that bad actors know they will be blocked or removed from the network for bad actions.
- Allow people to override automatic decisions.
- Consider embedding this idea in your technical and social code (e.g. Code of Conduct).
Potential Problems with Cautious Optimism ¶
- Cautious optimism is still optimism. Plenty of bad actors could already benefit from being trusted once — especially if it’s easy to create new disposable identities on the network. This strategy is only going to be useful if bad actors can be permanently removed.
- Tit for tat risks punishing those that are new and unfamiliar with the platform. Make sure this policy is transparently communicated up-front.
- Justice may not always come in the form of punishment (e.g. blocking users), also consider what transformative justice might look like for your community.
The Take Away ¶
When designing a protocol, build in opportunities for detecting and reacting to bad behavior.
References & Where to Learn More ¶
The “tit for tat” strategy
See network health indicators for one implementation strategy, tracking how long peers host data to determine whether to share with them in the future