- I Still have a few stupid questions for those just in case scenarios...
What if the listee with bad intentions is prepared? for example He/She/entity owns let's say 25 % of the coins in 15000 staking wallets. Doesn't this mean that his chances of getting 6 out of the 11 review invitations are greatly enhanced ? And if he keeps on pushing and trying, at some stage He will get those 6/11 reviews, and can control the vote?.... Not saying this will happen, and probably plutonium dealers have other sources of selling it than cloak, but who's to say? ( I guess there is nothing to do and that is just the way it is..)
- What about outright bribery ? The listee proposes to pay 1 btc to the reviewers upon proof of voting for his successful cause? etc..
Thanks for your time and effort in answering these bothersome questions..
After a long talk on the IRC channel, I've come to some solutions to this issue. This will be extremely technical in nature so if someone wants to sum up what I write here in an easy way to explain please do so. This is a rough draft so if you see any errors point them out and I'll fix it.
Anyone can be a reviewer,
they simply broadcast out their public key of their cloak address saying they are a reviewer. This
gets stored in a separate ledger database on everyones computer in the p2p network. If your broadcast does not appear within 2 hours of your last broadcast your account is removed from the ledger until you broadcast to the network again.
This will prevent bloating of the review ledger and keep only active reviewers.
To prevent spam, listings are required to pay a transaction fee that has to be approved by at least 11 confirmations before a listing is eligible for reviewers to accept. Since this has to occur anyways, during each of the staking processes,
the stakee can elect two* (arbitrary value, will be explained later) random reviewers from the ledger using a basic random function for each listing that needs a review. :: (Yes this vote could be manipulated, but read on) :: They secure their vote by signing it into the blockchain with their public key and in this way decide what reviewers they want for 'what listing'. In this way separate reviewers are constantly selected for listings and can be verified to be random by anyone reading the blockchain. The trick is...
a reviewer can NOT be assigned again for the same listing OR
by the SAME PERSON STAKING for (Expiration time of the listing calculated by hours worth of blocks). So if the listing expires in 7 days, each block in Cloakcoin is 60 seconds, that would be 60 blocks an hour multiplied by 24 hours in day for 1440 blocks. Multiply that by 7 and every 10080 blocks the original Staker will be eligible to vote again.
Reviews are accepted on a first come first serve basis as they populate into their review cue in the client and only active reviewers are being sent reviews so it will be competitive to pick them up quickly.
The following above would be hard to game since you would need to control a massive amount of the stake in cloak to get a chance of getting a manipulated vote in for the reviewer and even then you could only hope to gain '1' vote and your stake vote only counts once every (Expiration time of listing hours worth of blocks). Your listing would either be disapproved or approved by that point. Because certain individuals will control stake more often, this is why I believe two* should be chosen at once since some block rounds won't be generating any new reviewers for a listing. I may need to adjust this number to three or four, we'll have to play around with it.
Doing this makes it impractical to try and game the system and the votes, especially since you can not vote for a reviewer on the same stake more than (Expiration time of the listing calculated by hours worth of blocks) time.
Let me know if this makes any sense and if you have any questions.
EDIT **
I would like to mention that the person who stakes can not vote period again until the expiration time. If they win stake simply they do not vote, which is why multiple reviewers should be selected at one time by a valid staker.
Apologies to everyone for the long quote, but I think it is a necessity so that new readers understand what this is all about.
Sincere thanks for a quick response and a workable solution. This is getting better all the time. To be honest, I didn't think you could have solved the problem this fast, and so thoroughly !
I have a feeling that you need to setup a "mock" one market to test these concepts in reality, and then publish a good marketing video to youtube about how it works, how it is anonymous, the random votes etc. etc.
Thank you very much. Much appreciated.
