Any such 'dynamic trust system' seems vulnerable to the iterated prisoners dilemma by design. The goal of any blockchain based currency is fully trustless transactions. That's the entire killer app of bitcoin and bitcoin like systems. 'Dynamic trust models' represent a clear problem that has been *long* known about in the literature.
People should not keep deferring to somebodies resume to assume infallibility. Just because someone is obviously very smart does not mean they are not prone to attempting to 're-invent the wheel' without reference to fields they are not perhaps as familiar with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemmaGreat to see some argumentation given. Nothing more refreshing after the trollriver. I'm very keen to hear you out.
For clarity in conversation, can you state exactly how the prisoners' dilemma plays out here? I'm aware of the nature of the scenario, but it's seldom applied in the purely standard way.
We'd need to get Alpharisc to state it for the scenario he foresees for XC. But the problem in general concerns two "rationally self-interested" prisoners who (a) get out of jail if one betrays the other prisoner, (b) get a longer sentence if both prisoners betray each other, or (c) get a shorter sentence if neither of them betray the other.
Edit: the idea is that it's rational to betray the other prisoner. However things get more complicated in the iterative version of the dilemma: prisoners get to repeatedly choose to betray or not betray one another. Alpharisc, to my mind this plays into the hands of a WOT model as long as it's combined with a means of punishment. What's your view?
Alpharisc, you still there? Damn, there I was getting excited for a real live intellectual conversation.