4 ms·

> 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

> 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
    How do legitimate people get their first positive review?
    - collin128 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
    [deleted]
vertex-four 12y 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 12y ago
  Maybe add a second arbitrer that overlooks the whole case and decides if the first arbitrer has been fair?
  - krapp 12y ago
    And how do you trust the second, when you can't trust the first?
    - alttab 12y ago
      In the real world, there is no such thing as "trust" at all.
      - krapp 12y 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.
  - 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  How do legitimate people get their first positive review?
  - collin128 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y ago
  [deleted]

vertex-four 12y 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 12y ago
Maybe add a second arbitrer that overlooks the whole case and decides if the first arbitrer has been fair?
- krapp 12y ago
  And how do you trust the second, when you can't trust the first?
  - alttab 12y ago
    In the real world, there is no such thing as "trust" at all.
    - krapp 12y 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.
- 12y ago