Re: OpenCog Concerns

From: Matt Mahoney (
Date: Fri Feb 29 2008 - 18:49:00 MST

--- David Picón Álvarez <> wrote:

> From: "Matt Mahoney" <>
> > I would be more concerned about the uncontrolled and self-propagating
> > growth
> > of a competitive, distributed query/message posting service such as the
> > one I
> > outlined in
> > It is friendly only to the point that peers need to provide useful and
> > truthful information to acquire reputation and resources. Once hardware
> > advances to the point where peer intelligence exceeds human intelligence
> > (e.g.
> > the peers can write and debug software), then humans will be left behind,
> > at
> > the same time being totally dependent on it.
> Why wouldn't a network with this topology not suck like Freenet does, and
> why doesn't it make sense to use PKI to make the reputation system robust
> and the relaying tamper-proof?

Freenet like most P2P networks lacks distributed search (or any search).
Also, for a system like this to take off, it would have to be an extension of
the web, not separate from it. For example, Google would be a peer. The
advantage of distributed search is that posted messages are available
instantly, without waiting for a spider to find them. Messages could also be
forwarded to persistent queries. Posting a query or message could immediately
start a conversation.

I intend message passing to work over existing protocols like HTTPS. PKI can
be used to authenticate peers that have met before, but they still need to
verify each other's reply addresses when they meet for the first time. Public
key systems are not truly distributed because they depend on certificate
chains that go back to trusted root servers like Verisign. But to be truly
robust, it should not depend on lower level protocols except for transport.
In the worst case, it needs to work even if messages are sent over UDP with
fake source IP addresses.

-- Matt Mahoney,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT