influence of signature type on trustdb

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at
Thu Feb 7 17:54:46 CET 2013

On 02/07/2013 09:56 AM, Niels Laukens wrote:
> OK, would it make sense to use this level in the trust calculation?
> Similar to the `marginal` ownertrust: three type 0x12 sigs equivalent to
> one type 0x13 sig? With the numbers configurable, preferably.
> I guess this would make the trustdb calculations a little more
> complicated, because both ownertrust and siglevel need to be taken into
> account, but to me it feels like a "better" way.
> Or am I missing some obvious reasons why this is a bad idea?

one reason to be wary of any changes to the trust model are that most
humans i've talked to about this (including ones who have spent a decent
amount of time thinking about it) are often surprised even by the
current standard trust model.  Sometimes this is due to not thinking
through the consequences of their choices, sometimes it's due to not
really understanding how the standard trust model actually works.

Making the trust model even more complicated without improving
comprehensibility to the user seems like trouble.


PS i actually think that the standard trust model is decent, though i've
proposed a few changes to it myself.  I think anyone interested in
improving the trust model should probably try to think through how to
make an improved user interface for people who are trying to inspect the
trust model.  This is a hard problem.  But reinforcing good user
intuitions about what's going on would probably be a bigger win than an
algorithmic adjustment (and might make algorithmic adjustments easier in
the future).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1027 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20130207/52321bfb/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list