3 ms·

>Is there any real value in it being decentralized other than bypassing laws You don't have to trust the person running the market.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- cjg 13y ago
  Not really true, as you don't get much by suing a company that is in liquidation.
- jerf 13y ago
  This strikes me as the sort of thing where, if you can have it simply technically impossible to cheat, that beats any legal after-the-fact fixup you might be able to employ. It reminds of strong typing... sure, you can unit test the heck out of your code, but even better would be simply guaranteeing up front that there's no clever way a user can jam a string in where you expected an int.
- baddox 13y ago
  That notion shows how dangerous and distortive the reliance on regulatory systems is.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  Just because the owner might go to prison doesn't mean I'm not taking a risk giving zhim my money.
gwern 13y ago
As Intrade reminded everyone, counterparty risk is very real, and wouldn't it be nice to have a non-centralized trustless prediction market?
- nabla9 13y ago
  The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude. I would like to see non-centralized single market that has protocol for multiple transparent brokers that compete with fees and have their reputation there for everyone to see and judge any way they want. This way the risk of large bets could be divided between brokers. Broker would be just identity and the 'implementation' could be single individual (anonymous or not), multiple individuals (broker syndicate) who would vote among themselves and manage their membership. Ability to attach decentralized algorithms as brokers should be also possible if taken into account when designing the protocols.
  - gwern 12y ago
    > The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude. Is this a problem for Bitcoin that there's a 'central' counterparty (the network)? If it is, then multiple Truthcoin networks could be run.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cjg 13y ago
Not really true, as you don't get much by suing a company that is in liquidation.
jerf 13y ago
This strikes me as the sort of thing where, if you can have it simply technically impossible to cheat, that beats any legal after-the-fact fixup you might be able to employ. It reminds of strong typing... sure, you can unit test the heck out of your code, but even better would be simply guaranteeing up front that there's no clever way a user can jam a string in where you expected an int.
baddox 13y ago
That notion shows how dangerous and distortive the reliance on regulatory systems is.
Anderkent 13y ago
Just because the owner might go to prison doesn't mean I'm not taking a risk giving zhim my money.

gwern 13y ago

As Intrade reminded everyone, counterparty risk is very real, and wouldn't it be nice to have a non-centralized trustless prediction market?

nabla9 13y ago
The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude. I would like to see non-centralized single market that has protocol for multiple transparent brokers that compete with fees and have their reputation there for everyone to see and judge any way they want. This way the risk of large bets could be divided between brokers. Broker would be just identity and the 'implementation' could be single individual (anonymous or not), multiple individuals (broker syndicate) who would vote among themselves and manage their membership. Ability to attach decentralized algorithms as brokers should be also possible if taken into account when designing the protocols.
- gwern 12y ago
  > The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude. Is this a problem for Bitcoin that there's a 'central' counterparty (the network)? If it is, then multiple Truthcoin networks could be run.