<p>While it's certainly possible to implement a script to handle trust the way NameCoin handles DNS-like transactions there are a few possible "weak links" in such a system. First, since an individual can't usually be known the trust could only be tied to individual addresses, which would encourage the re-use of addresses and thus decrease the anonymity of the network as a whole since merchants would want to find ways to get around generating a new address for each transaction in order to maximize their trust rating. The only alternative is to implement a system of binding multiple addresses into one trusted "account" which would further compromise anonymity by making it known precisely who owns which addresses thereby tying at least one side of most Bitcoin transactions to a real person.</p>

<p>In short, it's possible but it kills the pseudonymous nature of the network and makes transactions far too traceable to real identities. It could be implemented, but given the private (and disruptive) nature of most Bitcoin proponents it's unlikely that it will be. An external "Web of Trust" type system carries adequate benefits without compromising Bitcoin itself and in fact, there has been a great deal of discussion on <a href="http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/webs-of-trust-and-how-to-decentralize-them">how to decentralize them</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T17:44:46.923Z
I'm not suggesting this will ever be incorporated in the main bitcoin chain/client, but rather as an alternative network. Even though Bitcoin users value anonymity, there can be another set of users that values the properties provided by this alternative network.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T17:47:34.457Z
Wasn't the question about building some *standard* trust system with Bitcoin technology? By “standard” I mean not liked in any way to bitcoin addresses used to store money (those are better be kept anonymous). The problem with *SSL* is that it is a centralized authentication mechanism. The problem with gpg is that you have do deal with lots of parameters by yourself. I think the question was about a simplified & decentralized system, but maybe I'm wrong. The *last paragraph* form the link you provided seems to mention this specific problem, but details for a possible solution are missing.
Stéphane Gimenez
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T20:28:40.913Z
@Stephane - See edit. The question is about the possibility of creating a new security standard that is based on the bitcoin technology, but not integrated in the main blockchain. The link is perhaps not optimal, just the last story I read today about that incident.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T14:25:09.803Z
2011-09-06T14:25:09.803Z
David Perry
<p>I dont know how this could be built on top of the bitcoin protocol. Trust will be built by the community trading with each other because trust isnt needed with the bitcoin protocol itself amongst clients.</p>

<p>A great example of an external web of trust being built by the community is the <a href="http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php" rel="nofollow">bitcoin-otc</a> database. The <a href="http://bitcoin.crimeunit.net/wiki/index.php/Bitcoin_Police" rel="nofollow">bitcoin police</a> is another group attempting to build upon this and it has its own set of tools. Having competing entities rating each other is the best way to ensure these trust databases are effective.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-08T16:55:16.280Z
2011-09-08T16:55:16.280Z
BitcoinMedia
<p>Like <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin">Namecoin</a> is intended to replace / augment DNS, can the Bitcoin principles / protocol be extended to support a distributed "trust" mechanism, in a way that no central authority will need to be trusted in order to verify public key authenticity?</p>

<p>This post is inspired by the <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/05/1752258/Rogue-SSL-Certs-Issued-For-CIA-MI6-Mossad?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3a%20Slashdot/slashdot%20%28Slashdot%29">recent hack of a Certificate Authority</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Clarification</strong> - I don't mean for this technology to be integrated within the main client or blockchain, just for the underlying technology to be used.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-20T07:46:54.507Z
For people who are here because they are concerned about the centralized CA in SSL you should look at [DANE / TLSA as it resolves most of the issues that exist in the public PKI system](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6698)  (it's not perfect, but solves many issues)
makerofthings7
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T20:13:26.670Z
I submitted an edit to clarify that this would be separate from the current bitcoin currency system, based on OP's comment to an answer below
nealmcb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-06T20:27:24.380Z
@nealmcb - accepted.
ripper234
<alternatives><trust>
Can Bitcoin technology be leveraged to implement a decentralized trust system (i.e. a replacement to SSL)?
ripper234
# Can Bitcoin technology be leveraged to implement a decentralized trust system (i.e. a replacement to SSL)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-09-06)

Like [Namecoin](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin) is intended to replace / augment DNS, can the Bitcoin principles / protocol be extended to support a distributed "trust" mechanism, in a way that no central authority will need to be trusted in order to verify public key authenticity?

This post is inspired by the [recent hack of a Certificate Authority](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/05/1752258/Rogue-SSL-Certs-Issued-For-CIA-MI6-Mossad?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3a%20Slashdot/slashdot%20%28Slashdot%29).

**Clarification** - I don't mean for this technology to be integrated within the main client or blockchain, just for the underlying technology to be used.

**Tags:** alternatives, trust

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I submitted an edit to clarify that this would be separate from the current bitcoin currency system, based on OP's comment to an answer below  
> **username_0**: @username_2 - accepted.  
> **username_1**: For people who are here because they are concerned about the centralized CA in SSL you should look at [DANE / TLSA as it resolves most of the issues that exist in the public PKI system](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6698)  (it's not perfect, but solves many issues)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2011-09-06. Score: 5

While it's certainly possible to implement a script to handle trust the way NameCoin handles DNS-like transactions there are a few possible "weak links" in such a system. First, since an individual can't usually be known the trust could only be tied to individual addresses, which would encourage the re-use of addresses and thus decrease the anonymity of the network as a whole since merchants would want to find ways to get around generating a new address for each transaction in order to maximize their trust rating. The only alternative is to implement a system of binding multiple addresses into one trusted "account" which would further compromise anonymity by making it known precisely who owns which addresses thereby tying at least one side of most Bitcoin transactions to a real person.

In short, it's possible but it kills the pseudonymous nature of the network and makes transactions far too traceable to real identities. It could be implemented, but given the private (and disruptive) nature of most Bitcoin proponents it's unlikely that it will be. An external "Web of Trust" type system carries adequate benefits without compromising Bitcoin itself and in fact, there has been a great deal of discussion on [how to decentralize them](http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/webs-of-trust-and-how-to-decentralize-them).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm not suggesting this will ever be incorporated in the main bitcoin chain/client, but rather as an alternative network. Even though Bitcoin users value anonymity, there can be another set of users that values the properties provided by this alternative network.  
> **username_4**: Wasn't the question about building some *standard* trust system with Bitcoin technology? By “standard” I mean not liked in any way to bitcoin addresses used to store money (those are better be kept anonymous). The problem with *SSL* is that it is a centralized authentication mechanism. The problem with gpg is that you have do deal with lots of parameters by yourself. I think the question was about a simplified & decentralized system, but maybe I'm wrong. The *last paragraph* form the link you provided seems to mention this specific problem, but details for a possible solution are missing.  
> **username_0**: @Stephane - See edit. The question is about the possibility of creating a new security standard that is based on the bitcoin technology, but not integrated in the main blockchain. The link is perhaps not optimal, just the last story I read today about that incident.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2011-09-08. Score: 0

I dont know how this could be built on top of the bitcoin protocol. Trust will be built by the community trading with each other because trust isnt needed with the bitcoin protocol itself amongst clients.

A great example of an external web of trust being built by the community is the [bitcoin-otc](http://bitcoin-otc.com/trust.php) database. The [bitcoin police](http://bitcoin.crimeunit.net/wiki/index.php/Bitcoin_Police) is another group attempting to build upon this and it has its own set of tools. Having competing entities rating each other is the best way to ensure these trust databases are effective.


---

