Distributed OS: Winter 2011 Reputation Systems Paper - Revision history

Mdpless2: /* Conclusion */

2011-04-12T03:55:14Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 12 April 2011
Line 116:		Line 116:
	=Conclusion=		=Conclusion=

	This paper has covered what reputation is, and how it can be applied to computer networks. We have discussed what constitutes reputation, and how it can be useful for judging the nature of a member of a reputation system. This leads to why reputation is useful; it provides a means for quickly judging another system, and a distributed reputation system would allow for members of ~~said~~ system to judge ~~one~~ another based upon past actions. Such a system would need to have and allow for imposed rules to punish actions that are universally shunned, such as the distribution of malware. It would also need to allow for emergent rules, as many entities in a system will have different views as to what would constitute a reputation lowering event. Existing systems for reputation, which are peer-to-peer and policy-based, are not suitable for a completely open, large distributed network, such as the internet.		This paper has covered what reputation is, and how it can be applied to computer networks. We have discussed what constitutes reputation, and how it can be useful for judging the nature of a member of a reputation system. This leads to why reputation is useful; it provides a means for quickly judging another system, and a distributed reputation system would allow for members of that system to judge another based upon past actions. Such a system would need to have and allow for imposed rules to punish actions that are universally shunned, such as the distribution of malware. It would also need to allow for emergent rules, as many entities in a system will have different views as to what would constitute a reputation lowering event. Existing systems for reputation, which are peer-to-peer and policy-based, are not suitable for a completely open, large distributed network, such as the internet.

	The central idea of a reputation system is the need for a distributed means of storing the history of reputation events, to provide evidence that can be used to justify a reputation. For a history store to work however, the reputation events must first be observed by an entity. These events would need to be stored and maintained in such a way as to allow for massive scalability. They would then need to be disseminated in some fashion. This could be a hierarchy where information is regulated by an authority, It could be a publish/subscribe model, where reputation information is published by one entity an subscribed to by others, or a peer-to-peer system, where information would be disseminated in a gossip-based fashion. Events will however ~~rise~~ when a member of the system doesn't know everything it needs to to make a decision. In this case, it will need a means to query ~~it's~~ peers for information. When this entity has enough information, either via dissemination or querying, it can safely connect to another entity, leading to a successful implementation of a reputation system.		The central idea of a reputation system is the need for a distributed means of storing the history of reputation events, to provide evidence that can be used to justify a reputation. For a history store to work however, the reputation events must first be observed by an entity. These events would need to be stored and maintained in such a way as to allow for massive scalability. They would then need to be disseminated in some fashion. This could be a hierarchy where information is regulated by an authority, It could be a publish/subscribe model, where reputation information is published by one entity an subscribed to by others, or a peer-to-peer system, where information would be disseminated in a gossip-based fashion. Events will however arise when a member of the system doesn't know everything it needs to in order to make a decision. In this case, it will need a means to query its peers for information. When this entity has enough information, either via dissemination or querying, it can safely connect to another entity; leading to a successful implementation of a reputation system.

	Reputations systems have already formed an important part of the internet in some areas. It is very likely that they will continue to do so in the future, and their scope is ~~only~~ likely to ~~only~~ increase. This paper presented an overview on current reputation systems, as well as providing an outline on how the idea of a reputation system can be implemented on an internet-~~wise~~ scale. By dividing up the problem of designing and implementing a reputation system into several smaller components, this paper tackled the complicated questions associated with the overall architecture of a reputation system and how such a system can be created in a way to satisfy the multitude of stakeholders that exist in the cloud. While such a system might not be immediately implementable, it is ~~the~~ likely that such a system would provide tangible long-term ~~benefits~~ in the future.		Reputations systems have already formed an important part of the internet in some areas. It is very likely that they will continue to do so in the future, and their scope is likely to increase. This paper presented an overview of current reputation systems, as well as providing an outline of how the idea of a reputation system can be implemented on an internet-size scale. By dividing up the problem of designing and implementing a reputation system into several smaller components, this paper tackled the complicated questions associated with the overall architecture of a reputation system and how such a system can be created in a way to satisfy the multitude of stakeholders that exist in the cloud. While such a system might not be immediately implementable, it is likely that such a system would provide a tangible long-term benefit in the future.

	=References=		=References=

	<references />		<references />

Nlessard: /* Conclusion */

2011-04-12T03:46:43Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 12 April 2011
Line 118:		Line 118:
	This paper has covered what reputation is, and how it can be applied to computer networks. We have discussed what constitutes reputation, and how it can be useful for judging the nature of a member of a reputation system. This leads to why reputation is useful; it provides a means for quickly judging another system, and a distributed reputation system would allow for members of said system to judge one another based upon past actions. Such a system would need to have and allow for imposed rules to punish actions that are universally shunned, such as the distribution of malware. It would also need to allow for emergent rules, as many entities in a system will have different views as to what would constitute a reputation lowering event. Existing systems for reputation, which are peer-to-peer and policy-based, are not suitable for a completely open, large distributed network, such as the internet.		This paper has covered what reputation is, and how it can be applied to computer networks. We have discussed what constitutes reputation, and how it can be useful for judging the nature of a member of a reputation system. This leads to why reputation is useful; it provides a means for quickly judging another system, and a distributed reputation system would allow for members of said system to judge one another based upon past actions. Such a system would need to have and allow for imposed rules to punish actions that are universally shunned, such as the distribution of malware. It would also need to allow for emergent rules, as many entities in a system will have different views as to what would constitute a reputation lowering event. Existing systems for reputation, which are peer-to-peer and policy-based, are not suitable for a completely open, large distributed network, such as the internet.

	~~<more coming>~~		The central idea of a reputation system is the need for a distributed means of storing the history of reputation events, to provide evidence that can be used to justify a reputation. For a history store to work however, the reputation events must first be observed by an entity. These events would need to be stored and maintained in such a way as to allow for massive scalability. They would then need to be disseminated in some fashion. This could be a hierarchy where information is regulated by an authority, It could be a publish/subscribe model, where reputation information is published by one entity an subscribed to by others, or a peer-to-peer system, where information would be disseminated in a gossip-based fashion. Events will however rise when a member of the system doesn't know everything it needs to to make a decision. In this case, it will need a means to query it's peers for information. When this entity has enough information, either via dissemination or querying, it can safely connect to another entity, leading to a successful implementation of a reputation system.

	Reputations systems have already formed an important part of the internet in some areas. It is very likely that they will continue to do so in the future, and their scope is only likely to only increase. This paper presented an overview on current reputation systems, as well as providing an outline on how the idea of a reputation system can be implemented on an internet-wise scale. By dividing up the problem of designing and implementing a reputation system into several smaller components, this paper tackled the complicated questions associated with the overall architecture of a reputation system and how such a system can be created in a way to satisfy the multitude of stakeholders that exist in the cloud. While such a system might not be immediately implementable, it is the likely that such a system would provide tangible long-term benefits in the future.		Reputations systems have already formed an important part of the internet in some areas. It is very likely that they will continue to do so in the future, and their scope is only likely to only increase. This paper presented an overview on current reputation systems, as well as providing an outline on how the idea of a reputation system can be implemented on an internet-wise scale. By dividing up the problem of designing and implementing a reputation system into several smaller components, this paper tackled the complicated questions associated with the overall architecture of a reputation system and how such a system can be created in a way to satisfy the multitude of stakeholders that exist in the cloud. While such a system might not be immediately implementable, it is the likely that such a system would provide tangible long-term benefits in the future.

Tgelowsk at 03:21, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T03:21:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 12 April 2011
Line 109:		Line 109:
	==Can we achieve this through incremental updates?==		==Can we achieve this through incremental updates?==

	The key question is whether we can deploy this reputation system using incremental updates.
			The key question is whether we can deploy this reputation system using incremental updates. Obviously, a large-scale wholesale changeover wouldn't be palatable to anyone. Organizations and individuals are historically, and understandably reticent to change. That said, it is very likely that such a large change in operating mentality will require adoption at both the corporate level, and the individual level.
	Basically, phasing this in will rely on companies deciding that it is in their own best interests to have this running locally. Individuals part of the greater organization would then have to decide to switch to the gossip-based solution. Eventually, an emergent and cohesive system would appear.Reputation is currently facilitated by justice systems and imposed rules for entities within systems. We can continue to use imposed rules or existing infrastructure if we don't have adequate emergent information. This way we can incrementally update the environment and eventually have a full-fledged emergent reputation system.
			Basically, phasing this in will rely on companies deciding that it is in their own best interests to have this running locally. Individuals part of the greater organization would then have to decide to switch to the gossip-based solution. Eventually, an emergent and cohesive system would appear. Reputation is currently facilitated by justice systems and imposed rules for entities within systems. We can continue to use imposed rules or existing infrastructure if we don't have adequate emergent information. This way we can incrementally update the environment and eventually have a full-fledged emergent reputation system. This evolutionary system is much preferable to the alternative revolutionary system because it avoids the disruption that a revolutionary change necessitates.

	=Conclusion=		=Conclusion=
Line 118:		Line 119:

	<more coming>		<more coming>

			Reputations systems have already formed an important part of the internet in some areas. It is very likely that they will continue to do so in the future, and their scope is only likely to only increase. This paper presented an overview on current reputation systems, as well as providing an outline on how the idea of a reputation system can be implemented on an internet-wise scale. By dividing up the problem of designing and implementing a reputation system into several smaller components, this paper tackled the complicated questions associated with the overall architecture of a reputation system and how such a system can be created in a way to satisfy the multitude of stakeholders that exist in the cloud. While such a system might not be immediately implementable, it is the likely that such a system would provide tangible long-term benefits in the future.

	=References=		=References=

	<references />		<references />

Nlessard: /* Conclusion */

2011-04-12T03:17:43Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:17, 12 April 2011
Line 115:		Line 115:
	=Conclusion=		=Conclusion=

			This paper has covered what reputation is, and how it can be applied to computer networks. We have discussed what constitutes reputation, and how it can be useful for judging the nature of a member of a reputation system. This leads to why reputation is useful; it provides a means for quickly judging another system, and a distributed reputation system would allow for members of said system to judge one another based upon past actions. Such a system would need to have and allow for imposed rules to punish actions that are universally shunned, such as the distribution of malware. It would also need to allow for emergent rules, as many entities in a system will have different views as to what would constitute a reputation lowering event. Existing systems for reputation, which are peer-to-peer and policy-based, are not suitable for a completely open, large distributed network, such as the internet.

			<more coming>

	=References=		=References=

	<references />		<references />

Mdpless2: /* Implementation */

2011-04-12T02:06:23Z

Implementation

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 12 April 2011
Line 104:		Line 104:

	=Implementation=		=Implementation=

			The implementation and deployment of such a reputation system is a very difficult task. Ideally, all systems would simultaneously switch over to a new protocol for reputation management. On a distributed system as large as the web, this is highly improbable. Typically, the success of updates and layers built on top of the web's existing architecture comes down to the fact that they are incrementally deployable. Updates are incremental and so the entire system is not succumbed to a system-wide blackout.

	==Can we achieve this through incremental updates?==		==Can we achieve this through incremental updates?==

	~~<possible~~ we can... we can use imposed rules or existing infrastructure if we don't have adequate emergent information. This way we can incrementally update the system and eventually we will have a full-fledged emergent reputation system. ~~Hope this helps someone... I don't quite know enough to write about this.>~~		The key question is whether we can deploy this reputation system using incremental updates.

	~~<Trevor:~~ Basically, phasing this in will ~~reply~~ on companies deciding it's in their own best interests to have this running locally~~, and~~ then ~~individuals will~~ have to decide to ~~use~~ the gossip-based solution, and ~~eventually, emergent, a~~ cohesive system would appear.>		Basically, phasing this in will rely on companies deciding that it is in their own best interests to have this running locally. Individuals part of the greater organization would then have to decide to switch to the gossip-based solution. Eventually, an emergent and cohesive system would appear.Reputation is currently facilitated by justice systems and imposed rules for entities within systems. We can continue to use imposed rules or existing infrastructure if we don't have adequate emergent information. This way we can incrementally update the environment and eventually have a full-fledged emergent reputation system.

	=Conclusion=		=Conclusion=

Nlessard at 01:11, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T01:11:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 12 April 2011
Line 90:		Line 90:
	Peer-to-Peer Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2010. http://www.chennaisunday.com/ieee%202010/Reputation%20Estimation%20and%20Query%20in%20Peer-to-Peer%20Networks.pdf </ref> In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.		Peer-to-Peer Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2010. http://www.chennaisunday.com/ieee%202010/Reputation%20Estimation%20and%20Query%20in%20Peer-to-Peer%20Networks.pdf </ref> In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.

	The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. <ref name="repest" /> Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.~~[B]~~		The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. <ref name="repest" /> Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.<ref name="EviMod">Bin Yu, Munindar P. Singh, "An Evidential Model of Distributed Reputation Management", AAMAS’02, July 19, 2002, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=544809&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561&retn=1#Fulltext </ref>.

	This brings us back to the two primary types of reputation systems, hierarchical and distributed. In a hierarchical system the process is incredibly simple: ask your superior node, and wait for a response. The superior node might have enough information on hand to decide, or it might ask its peers or superiors. Either way, the response received from the superior node will be used by the original querying node.		This brings us back to the two primary types of reputation systems, hierarchical and distributed. In a hierarchical system the process is incredibly simple: ask your superior node, and wait for a response. The superior node might have enough information on hand to decide, or it might ask its peers or superiors. Either way, the response received from the superior node will be used by the original querying node.
Line 116:		Line 116:

	<references />		<references />

	~~>--I'LL DO THESE UP PROPERLY SOON--Nick<~~

	~~[B] http://delivery.acm.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1145/550000/544809/p294-yu.pdf?key1=544809&key2=3913452031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=134.117.10.200&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561~~

Nlessard at 00:55, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T00:55:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 12 April 2011
Line 88:		Line 88:

	As previously mentioned, in this paper, there are two primary layouts for a reputation system: hierarchical and distributed. Both of which will need to interact with each other. In a hierarchical-centralized system, there is a hierarchy of nodes who defer to each other. Any given node in the system will defer to an authority, known as its authority node. Most, if not all, reputation information will go through this node, and as far as their subordinate nodes are concerned, his 'views', or interpretation of the reputation data, will be absolute. In this scheme nothing is lost if a node were to leave the network.<ref name="repest">Xing Jin, S.-H. Gary Chan, "Reputation Estimation and Query in		As previously mentioned, in this paper, there are two primary layouts for a reputation system: hierarchical and distributed. Both of which will need to interact with each other. In a hierarchical-centralized system, there is a hierarchy of nodes who defer to each other. Any given node in the system will defer to an authority, known as its authority node. Most, if not all, reputation information will go through this node, and as far as their subordinate nodes are concerned, his 'views', or interpretation of the reputation data, will be absolute. In this scheme nothing is lost if a node were to leave the network.<ref name="repest">Xing Jin, S.-H. Gary Chan, "Reputation Estimation and Query in
	Peer-to-Peer Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2010. </ref>. In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.		Peer-to-Peer Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2010. http://www.chennaisunday.com/ieee%202010/Reputation%20Estimation%20and%20Query%20in%20Peer-to-Peer%20Networks.pdf </ref> In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.

	The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. <ref name="repest" /> Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.[B]		The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. <ref name="repest" /> Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.[B]

Nlessard: don't need that anymore

2011-04-12T00:54:13Z

don't need that anymore

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 12 April 2011
Line 102:		Line 102:

	Once an entity has obtained this information, either via the regular process of dissemination, querying, or witnessing an event firsthand, it needs to make a decision. This is, ultimately, very open ended and up to each entity. For example, A very simple mechanism would be to only communicate with entities that have no negative reputation events of any kind, and that are only viewed neutrally or positively by other entities. Another would be to ignore other entities opinions, assign a weight to each type of reputation event and do a calculation based on the evidence. However these are only two options among many, there is no need for a standardized process. In short, the process and details of actually making the decision are not that important, as long as what's decided upon is something that other entities can understand. That is, using a collection of evidence that's been stored to form an opinion that other entities can query you on, and deciding whether or not and under what conditions to connect to the other entity.		Once an entity has obtained this information, either via the regular process of dissemination, querying, or witnessing an event firsthand, it needs to make a decision. This is, ultimately, very open ended and up to each entity. For example, A very simple mechanism would be to only communicate with entities that have no negative reputation events of any kind, and that are only viewed neutrally or positively by other entities. Another would be to ignore other entities opinions, assign a weight to each type of reputation event and do a calculation based on the evidence. However these are only two options among many, there is no need for a standardized process. In short, the process and details of actually making the decision are not that important, as long as what's decided upon is something that other entities can understand. That is, using a collection of evidence that's been stored to form an opinion that other entities can query you on, and deciding whether or not and under what conditions to connect to the other entity.


	~~<Is that the idea?> looks good - maybe wrap up the idea at the end. we'll see what Trevor has to say.~~
	<That should tie it together but again that's only how I would do it. ie what goes in and what come out need to be standardized but what happens in the middle is completely arbitrary. Not exactly an original idea or anything.>
	~~<Trevor: This is mostly a justice thing. We need to talk about it, but I also listed it as an assumption above. But yes, this is in general the right idea>~~


	=Implementation=		=Implementation=

Nlessard at 00:53, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T00:53:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:53, 12 April 2011
Line 87:		Line 87:
	But what does a system for querying need to address? It needs to be able to request information on demand, and receive that information quickly and efficiently. Specifically, the system needs to be able to handle any given entity in sending out a request for reputation information, and have other entities process that request and return a response. There needs to be a way for an entity to handle the likely event that there is no reputation information on another entity. Finally, the entity needs a way to process and interpret the information it receives.		But what does a system for querying need to address? It needs to be able to request information on demand, and receive that information quickly and efficiently. Specifically, the system needs to be able to handle any given entity in sending out a request for reputation information, and have other entities process that request and return a response. There needs to be a way for an entity to handle the likely event that there is no reputation information on another entity. Finally, the entity needs a way to process and interpret the information it receives.

	As previously mentioned, in this paper, there are two primary layouts for a reputation system: hierarchical and distributed. Both of which will need to interact with each other. In a hierarchical-centralized system, there is a hierarchy of nodes who defer to each other. Any given node in the system will defer to an authority, known as its authority node. Most, if not all, reputation information will go through this node, and as far as their subordinate nodes are concerned, his 'views', or interpretation of the reputation data, will be absolute. In this scheme nothing is lost if a node were to leave the network.~~[A]~~In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.		As previously mentioned, in this paper, there are two primary layouts for a reputation system: hierarchical and distributed. Both of which will need to interact with each other. In a hierarchical-centralized system, there is a hierarchy of nodes who defer to each other. Any given node in the system will defer to an authority, known as its authority node. Most, if not all, reputation information will go through this node, and as far as their subordinate nodes are concerned, his 'views', or interpretation of the reputation data, will be absolute. In this scheme nothing is lost if a node were to leave the network.<ref name="repest">Xing Jin, S.-H. Gary Chan, "Reputation Estimation and Query in
			Peer-to-Peer Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2010. </ref>. In a distributed, peer to peer system, reputation information will be acquired from trusted peers and analyzed to determine whether to connect or not.

	The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. ~~[A]~~ Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.[B]		The actual process of querying should be fairly simple. A given entity or node in the system needs to decide if it should contact another node in the system. First, it must check its local representation of reputation data to see if it already has both enough, and up-to-date information on a node. If it does, it can move toward making a decision, which is discussed later. If however, the information needed is not already held by the node, it will need to be queried. This would be similar to the XREP system used in some peer-to-peer file sharing networks, Which can “Query” and “Poll” peers to decide who to obtain resources from. <ref name="repest" /> Another similar concept is a “TrustNet”, wherein an “Agent”, after determining another “Agent” isn't already acquainted with him, will query all his Neighbours on the secondary agents trustworthiness.[B]

	This brings us back to the two primary types of reputation systems, hierarchical and distributed. In a hierarchical system the process is incredibly simple: ask your superior node, and wait for a response. The superior node might have enough information on hand to decide, or it might ask its peers or superiors. Either way, the response received from the superior node will be used by the original querying node.		This brings us back to the two primary types of reputation systems, hierarchical and distributed. In a hierarchical system the process is incredibly simple: ask your superior node, and wait for a response. The superior node might have enough information on hand to decide, or it might ask its peers or superiors. Either way, the response received from the superior node will be used by the original querying node.
Line 123:		Line 124:

	>--I'LL DO THESE UP PROPERLY SOON--Nick<		>--I'LL DO THESE UP PROPERLY SOON--Nick<

	~~[A] http://www.chennaisunday.com/ieee%202010/Reputation%20Estimation%20and%20Query%20in%20Peer-to-Peer%20Networks.pdf~~

	[B] http://delivery.acm.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1145/550000/544809/p294-yu.pdf?key1=544809&key2=3913452031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=134.117.10.200&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561		[B] http://delivery.acm.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1145/550000/544809/p294-yu.pdf?key1=544809&key2=3913452031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=134.117.10.200&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561

Mdpless2: /* DELETE */

2011-04-11T23:41:04Z

DELETE

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 11 April 2011
Line 127:		Line 127:

	[B] http://delivery.acm.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1145/550000/544809/p294-yu.pdf?key1=544809&key2=3913452031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=134.117.10.200&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561		[B] http://delivery.acm.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/10.1145/550000/544809/p294-yu.pdf?key1=544809&key2=3913452031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=134.117.10.200&CFID=17527626&CFTOKEN=24792561

	~~=DELETE=~~
	~~Why PKI should be omitted~~
	~~reputation must be trusted = we get this trust through interactions. We BELIEVE this trust because we assume we have attribution!~~