Have you ever thought of bringing back the Middleman - but decentralized? - page 2.

oathprotocol

copper member

Activity: 117

Merit: 0

Governance & Dispute Resolution Protocol

Quote from: kryptqnick on October 19, 2018, 02:39:10 PM

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

The idea of arbitrators is what blockchain was trying to avoid. They require additional costs, time and risks. Even if one is trained, how do we make sure s_he is not motivated by a bribe that was received from one party? Smart contracts are trying to be pretty good at avoiding intermediaries but of course not everything can be solved by them. 6 eos unrefundable fee just to get the case arbitraged - that's almost nothing, but the fee grows tremendously if the disputed some is big. And there are also final arbitration costs, which is another ton of money! It's good that Oath is different in this matter, and this project sure might be an improvement in that sphere and there will probably always be people who are into suing each other to resolve matters.

Good points! I entirely agree that getting rid of the Middlemen is actually the entire point of decentralization and p2p networks. However, as you also said correctly, 1) smarts cannot cover each scenario and 2) we believe that "decentralization" without authorities/decision makers will lead to anarchy. That's even more dangerous than having centralization. So the ultimate conclusion is to simply decentralize the decision making as a complementary to only get active if it comes to a dispute, controversial opinions or content, or the like.

Our suggestion is merely an improvement for Blockchain Security besides the technological aspects. Hope that makes sense

oathprotocol

copper member

Activity: 117

Merit: 0

Governance & Dispute Resolution Protocol

Quote from: stompix on October 19, 2018, 11:57:15 AM

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

What is decentralized in this thing?
As long as they are nominated by somebody the whole decentralization is gone.

Quote

The arbitrators have to meet certain criteria, including fluency in English and minimum education level, and complete an apprenticeship training process, in which they are mentored by a more experienced arbitrator, before being allowed to rule on a dispute in their own right. Currently, there are six arbitrators who have been cleared to arbitrate mostly complex cases, which are then executed by EOS block-producers (BPs).

As for all of them, I love the fact that you have to pay (and in some cases a lot) to open an arbitration...
So basically, the one that can't afford it cause all his money is gone can say goodbye to justice and the one that has thousands of coins(tokens) and wallets at his disposal can stay pretty calm as he has a good chance that he will be the one ruling the dispute.

Two minutes spent on 4chain and then imagining of those guys posting there deciding in matters that can influence in a serious way someone's finances or life is one scary future!!!!!

To 1) the entire decision making is decentralized. You do not need to get nominated by anyone. Anyone can sign up and fills our a form where he provides basic information and absolves a simulation/test (some sort of KYC to initially filter out bots and malicious actors, if you will). Other, more experienced, Jurors will evaluate this test (but they cannot refuse him to join) and suggest an initial credit level for the newly recruited juror. This is all totally run and managed by the Community - so basically anyone who wants can join without restrictions.

To 2) EOS charges a case submission fee of minimum 6 EOS, so correctly said, if you submit a case and it gets refused by ECAF (centralized) you still have to pay. On Oath, arbitration fees are totally managed by the disputants without minimum fees involved. If they offer 0 rewards for the Jurors to resolve their conflict, they can do so. Without monetary incentive, however, it might be hard to continuously get disputes resolved.

oathprotocol

copper member

Activity: 117

Merit: 0

Governance & Dispute Resolution Protocol

Quote from: dothebeats on October 19, 2018, 07:43:13 AM

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

-snip-
Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes..
-snip-

I don't think this will ever work on bitcoin. This proposal is only applicable to a government or a small group of people wanting to have some leader-figure in their community. Bitcoin has been okay without any central figure of authority for the past 9 years, and lots of genuine and clever ideas have sprouted due to the decentralized nature of the network. If we were to have someone as a liaison, wouldn't that give this central figure some sort of hunger for power over time? We've already witnessed how grim it could be with our present governments, and have we learned not a single lesson from that?

Our Approach is not to replace decision making on whether or not to hard fork a chain or replace the BIP Forum. We merely focus on low value high volume disputes on the back end. Meaning: If a smart contract cannot be executed due to unforeseen influences that occurred during the exchange between the two parties involved, there is a necessity of an arbitrator to resolve this dispute - which cannot be covered by code.

Huberto2020

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Isn't this contradictory to the ideas of crypto? The technology was always meant to be decentralized and when this person is nominated, the whole feature is destroyed.

Ruggiero45

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

As soon as an authority is nominated to resolve disputes, the whole of decentralization is gone. This is just directly opposite of the fundamental essence of bitcoin.

Mr.Boring007

newbie

Activity: 37

Merit: 0

Bringing any form of middle man in a decentralized network defeats the purpose. Bitcoin's main feature is its decentralization and if its gone then the coin will not thrive.

Thinkable999

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

A middleman eradicates any issues with safety. A middleman can testify if something was wrong and needs to be verified. This is very hard to be implemented in a decentralized space.

kryptqnick

legendary

Activity: 3150

Merit: 1392

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

The idea of arbitrators is what blockchain was trying to avoid. They require additional costs, time and risks. Even if one is trained, how do we make sure s_he is not motivated by a bribe that was received from one party? Smart contracts are trying to be pretty good at avoiding intermediaries but of course not everything can be solved by them. 6 eos unrefundable fee just to get the case arbitraged - that's almost nothing, but the fee grows tremendously if the disputed some is big. And there are also final arbitration costs, which is another ton of money! It's good that Oath is different in this matter, and this project sure might be an improvement in that sphere and there will probably always be people who are into suing each other to resolve matters.

omonuyak

sr. member

Activity: 882

Merit: 269

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

I have think of the activities of middleman been introduced into cryptocurrencies as the level of scamming we are having now will be drastically reduced. Outside scamming and fraudulent activity I think cryptocurrencies should remain decentralized but because of the ways people are lossing money daily on icos that is the reason why i am saying this. Without the help of middleman it will take a very long time before bitcoin can witness big adoptions either by governments or institutional investors.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

What is decentralized in this thing?
As long as they are nominated by somebody the whole decentralization is gone.

Quote

The arbitrators have to meet certain criteria, including fluency in English and minimum education level, and complete an apprenticeship training process, in which they are mentored by a more experienced arbitrator, before being allowed to rule on a dispute in their own right. Currently, there are six arbitrators who have been cleared to arbitrate mostly complex cases, which are then executed by EOS block-producers (BPs).

As for all of them, I love the fact that you have to pay (and in some cases a lot) to open an arbitration...
So basically, the one that can't afford it cause all his money is gone can say goodbye to justice and the one that has thousands of coins(tokens) and wallets at his disposal can stay pretty calm as he has a good chance that he will be the one ruling the dispute.

Two minutes spent on 4chain and then imagining of those guys posting there deciding in matters that can influence in a serious way someone's finances or life is one scary future!!!!!

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: oathprotocol on October 19, 2018, 03:33:28 AM

-snip-
Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes..
-snip-

I don't think this will ever work on bitcoin. This proposal is only applicable to a government or a small group of people wanting to have some leader-figure in their community. Bitcoin has been okay without any central figure of authority for the past 9 years, and lots of genuine and clever ideas have sprouted due to the decentralized nature of the network. If we were to have someone as a liaison, wouldn't that give this central figure some sort of hunger for power over time? We've already witnessed how grim it could be with our present governments, and have we learned not a single lesson from that?

PlusOne88

member

Activity: 420

Merit: 10

“Tackling Climate Change Using Blockchain”

In my opinion this could give us, both users and investors, some advantage in terms of avoiding some of the risk when doing transactions. Buying coins is facilitated easily through them but at the expense of adding some to the cost of transactions. But if giving a little to them is worth more than the risk of doing transactions directly maybe it is far more better this way. In my locality we trusted the middle man to do transactions although it cost us a lot but I think it is better than losing your money through unknown or a faraway exchange that may just be another scam.

oathprotocol

copper member

Activity: 117

Merit: 0

Governance & Dispute Resolution Protocol

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

Topic: Have you ever thought of bringing back the Middleman - but decentralized? - page 2. (Read 323 times)