Ghost keys will ultimately be just one of a menu of options for bootstrapping reputation in a decentralized reputation system. They have the advantage of simplicity, anonymity, and helping to fund the project, but as you correctly point out - they are centralized.

A cryptocurrency-based solution like you suggest will undoubtedly be one of a menu of reputation bootstrapping options that will develop over time.

▲

blamestross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Reputation systems have been a theoretical idea for a while, but we haven't come up with anything sybil-proof without centralized identity management. "we have a menu" sounds a lot like "we don't actually have any viable plan" in this case.

Don't get me wrong, this is awesome. I think it is built on a subtlety bad premise. I think it is time to start build organizational nomic games on this sort of contract system, literal organization governance, for systems like this to thrive.

▲

Groxx 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There are tons of sybil-proof systems if you don't include signal from sources by default, but instead opt them in by hand. E.g. use a web of trust and then choose who you trust. It doesn't matter if there are trillions of accounts you don't trust, because you don't trust them.

▲

blamestross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which isn't a web of trust. it is just an "allowlist". Humans are vulnerable to sybil attacks too.

	▲	Groxx 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		An allow-list with transitive trust is a web of trust. And I said "use a web of trust", not "use an allow-list", because I really did mean "web of trust". And sure, they can be, if they adopt patterns that allow it. I can also find plenty of counter-examples. I don't think "humans are less vulnerable to sybil attacks than automated systems" is a weakly-defensible stance at all.