3 ms·

I like decentralized services as much as the next guy, but here are some problems off the top of my head: 1. Running a node could easily be made illegal in mos

by Tenoke 13y ago

I like decentralized services as much as the next guy, but here are some problems off the top of my head: 1. Running a node could easily be made illegal in most jurisdictions (abiding criminals), which is problematic for multiple reasons (there is distinction between helping the market operate and merely browsing it). 2. A big enough bug is enough to get everyone involved in trouble, and even if it is easy to fix the flaw everyone's identity up until that moment would be compromised (bitcoin for example has had many problems, which were later fixed, except that the stakes weren't as high) 3. During disputes, the arbiter can side with whoever offers them the biggest fee.

walden42 13y ago
> 3. During disputes, the arbiter can side with whoever offers them the biggest fee. Then he would be left a negative review. Arbiters will be chosen based on fairness.
- Tenoke 13y ago
  Sure, but making new identities is cheap in such an environment. Not that I am saying there are no fairly easy solutions, that could be implemented to prevent this, or that this is a big issue.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Sure, but making new identities is cheap in such an environment. Yes, but the real question is how easily can trust be manufactured?
  - nilved 13y ago
    No, it definitely isn't. It's not enough to have zero negative reviews, you also need to cultivate hundreds of positive reviews.
    - Natsu 13y ago
      How do legitimate people get their first positive review?
      - collin128 13y ago
        Exactly. A little social engineering by the police could quickly erode the trust in the network. Police could set up a ring of their own accounts, facilitate fake transactions amongst each other, leave positive reviews, take down one large player, then shut that ring down. Imagine hundreds of these rings within the network.
        drdaeman 13y ago
        That's possible if they're using only network-global review and reputation system. If they're also relying on WoT-like reputation system where peers rate peers, and reputation's calculated from those chains of trust, massive sockpuppet attackers won't be able to quickly erode trust, as they'd generate that trust only throughout their own circle, having minor impact on others. They'll have to play by the rules for a long time to spread connections through the network.
      - drdaeman 13y ago
        No idea how architects handle this, but my guess is, this could be done either by relying on external reputation (i.e. knowing the arbiter outside of the network) or by network somehow rewarding buyers and sellers who take a risk to chose "newbies" as arbiters.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- vertex-four 13y ago
  The arbiter is going to be left with a negative review no matter whether they were fair or not. There's often some measure of uncertainty in arbitration - you can barely ever prove beyond all reasonable doubt that one side attempted to scam the other. Basically, you're going to have to trust yourself to see which arbitrators are scammers, based on reviews, some amount of which are likely to be fake. This doesn't really help the whole situation of avoiding scammers, just moves it around slightly.
  - josu 13y ago
    Maybe add a second arbitrer that overlooks the whole case and decides if the first arbitrer has been fair?
    - krapp 13y ago
      And how do you trust the second, when you can't trust the first?
      - alttab 13y ago
        In the real world, there is no such thing as "trust" at all.
        krapp 13y ago
        On the contrary - in the real world, trust is unavoidable. Disregarding the obvious familial trust, I trust the manufacturers of the food I buy not to poison it. I trust that the gas pump is actually pumping gas. I trusted the bank teller to deposit the cash I gave her into my bank account and not just put it in her pocket (a trust her bank shared as well.) I trust my employers to pay me and my employers trust me not to steal their IP. Of course, in each of these cases, there exists a system to enforce regulations and punish infractions when trust is broken, because while trust has to work in many social and business transactions, people cannot always be trusted not to cheat, lie and game the system. And yes, this means one still has to trust that system to an unavoidable degree.
    - 13y ago

by Tenoke 13y ago

walden42 13y ago

> 3. During disputes, the arbiter can side with whoever offers them the biggest fee. Then he would be left a negative review. Arbiters will be chosen based on fairness.

Tenoke 13y ago
Sure, but making new identities is cheap in such an environment. Not that I am saying there are no fairly easy solutions, that could be implemented to prevent this, or that this is a big issue.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Sure, but making new identities is cheap in such an environment. Yes, but the real question is how easily can trust be manufactured?
- nilved 13y ago
  No, it definitely isn't. It's not enough to have zero negative reviews, you also need to cultivate hundreds of positive reviews.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    How do legitimate people get their first positive review?
    - collin128 13y ago
      Exactly. A little social engineering by the police could quickly erode the trust in the network. Police could set up a ring of their own accounts, facilitate fake transactions amongst each other, leave positive reviews, take down one large player, then shut that ring down. Imagine hundreds of these rings within the network.
      - drdaeman 13y ago
        That's possible if they're using only network-global review and reputation system. If they're also relying on WoT-like reputation system where peers rate peers, and reputation's calculated from those chains of trust, massive sockpuppet attackers won't be able to quickly erode trust, as they'd generate that trust only throughout their own circle, having minor impact on others. They'll have to play by the rules for a long time to spread connections through the network.
    - drdaeman 13y ago
      No idea how architects handle this, but my guess is, this could be done either by relying on external reputation (i.e. knowing the arbiter outside of the network) or by network somehow rewarding buyers and sellers who take a risk to chose "newbies" as arbiters.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
vertex-four 13y ago
The arbiter is going to be left with a negative review no matter whether they were fair or not. There's often some measure of uncertainty in arbitration - you can barely ever prove beyond all reasonable doubt that one side attempted to scam the other. Basically, you're going to have to trust yourself to see which arbitrators are scammers, based on reviews, some amount of which are likely to be fake. This doesn't really help the whole situation of avoiding scammers, just moves it around slightly.
- josu 13y ago
  Maybe add a second arbitrer that overlooks the whole case and decides if the first arbitrer has been fair?
  - krapp 13y ago
    And how do you trust the second, when you can't trust the first?
    - alttab 13y ago
      In the real world, there is no such thing as "trust" at all.
      - krapp 13y ago
        On the contrary - in the real world, trust is unavoidable. Disregarding the obvious familial trust, I trust the manufacturers of the food I buy not to poison it. I trust that the gas pump is actually pumping gas. I trusted the bank teller to deposit the cash I gave her into my bank account and not just put it in her pocket (a trust her bank shared as well.) I trust my employers to pay me and my employers trust me not to steal their IP. Of course, in each of these cases, there exists a system to enforce regulations and punish infractions when trust is broken, because while trust has to work in many social and business transactions, people cannot always be trusted not to cheat, lie and game the system. And yes, this means one still has to trust that system to an unavoidable degree.
  - 13y ago