Quote from: LouisCyphre on July 15, 2012, 10:52 pmFascinating post, though it reads like you're on a seriously large dose of the uppers of your choice. ;)By the way, did you have any problems with my message? It was encrypted to you, me and the other person I mentioned in it. If it does give you any grief, decrypt it on the command line with the "-v" flag included.Pine is high on life or possibly modafinil, coffee or chocolate at the moment. It is a toxic brew :OAha! That is a neat trick. I'm not sure, but I think the SpeakEasy forum (a proposed replacement for these ones) uses such ideas like these like shared encryption/group encryption, p2p and so on. I don't have the link, but it's on the OVDB subforum.It is easy to imagine a hypothetical forum, where all the members are a little like RPG characters, they have levels, and the higher the level you are at, the more of the forum you are able to view. So, the buyers see the buyers forum level of encryption, the sellers see more, and the founders/staff see more and so forth. But it is not cleanly split into 3 groups as it is in SR to some extent, but at a more general level with encryption protecting each shell from the next one (but more like a complex Venn Diagram than concentric shells). The 'level' could be applied via how integrated you are into the network, so in order to convince the network you are legitimate, you actually have to be part of the network. i.e. an advanced web of trust system, except that we also ask for 'proof of work' as it were. I don't have all the answers, but I think it's a very interesting idea, sort of similar to onion routing, but infinitely layered. The deal is that everybody is protected from everybody, so that even the most prominent member of the network is unable to betray the entire communications of the system if he gets taken down.