Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Expanding the use cases for DACs - Using DPoS delegates as trusted third parties  (Read 791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile

Obviously, the main selling point of DACs is that they are decentralized and autonomous on a protocol level. However, not everything can be implemented in a smart contract on the protocol level. One thing holding back the creation of some DACs is the need for trusted third party services. I believe DPoS and its delegates is a great solution for smart contracts that would require trusted third parties, meanwhile having benefits over current centralized solutions in terms of efficiency, fees, provably fairness, and others depending on the industry. Delegates would make trusted third party implementation into DACs manageable due to the numbers involved with them (trusting 101 people instead of one or a few people), and the fact that they could be voted out of power if one misbehaves or they collude in a nefarious manner.

Even with giving delegates more trusted roles and the extra work it would take and cost the DAC, I think we could still automate enough of it to where we could compete in a big way with some centralized behemoths through lower fees (IE. Ebay and Pokerstars), provably fairness (IE. Pokerstars), and other ways depending on the industry. I have long stated that decentralized poker can be done this way. One of the things holding it back is the ability to combat collusion, but I believe it can be done as efficiently as centralized services with slight centralization of the DAC. I am certain this is a non-issue, it is just a matter of making slight sacrifices to decentralization. The recent conversations about Open Bazaar and Ebay also made me think of it again, as arbitrators will be needed in that industry as well.

Here are a few ways I can think of that delegates can be used in this manner. Don't take this as a complete list because there are many possibilities of this, most of which I will not be able to think of off the top of my head. These are the use cases that immediately come to mind.

Arbitration
Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Escrow - Abritration of disputes via multi-signature addresses.
Decentralized Poker - IE. - Policing Collusion and Bots - Confiscating funds from nefarious actors and giving them back to those that were cheated through the use of multi-signature addresses.

Moderation
"Legal" Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Removing illegal items that are for sale in the marketplace
Decentralized Poker - IE. Policing Collusion and Bots - The detection of nefarious activity and investigation into players that have been reported.

Services
Decentralized Exchanges - IE. Multi-Token Decentralized Exchanges - Each delegate runs both a Bitcoin and BTSX client allowing exchange from one cryptocurrency/bitasset to another cryptocurrency in a sufficiently trust-less manner via multi-signature addresses.

Again.. I know that the appeal of DACs are the removal of trusted third parties, but in some cases they cannot be done away with. DPoS itself is inherently managed centralization, along with BTSX delegate price feeds, why not expand the roles of delegates beyond simply maintaining an updated client to expand DACs other industries?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 10:14:31 AM by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline monsterer

Why would you be more inclined to trust a completely anonymous entity (a delegate) over a registered company running a centralised service?
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12267
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BTS: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Why would you be more inclined to trust a completely anonymous entity (a delegate) over a registered company running a centralised service?
You may forget that most delegates are not anonymous entities and do run a company behind it ..
When you don't trust a particular delegate, choose another one ..
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline luckybit

Why would you be more inclined to trust a completely anonymous entity (a delegate) over a registered company running a centralised service?

Web of trust and reputation don't require you know who they are.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Obviously, the main selling point of DACs is that they are decentralized and autonomous on a protocol level. However, not everything can be implemented in a smart contract on the protocol level. One thing holding back the creation of some DACs is the need for trusted third party services. I believe DPoS and its delegates is a great solution for smart contracts that would require trusted third parties, meanwhile having benefits over current centralized solutions in terms of efficiency, fees, provably fairness, and others depending on the industry. Delegates would make trusted third party implementation into DACs manageable due to the numbers involved with them (trusting 101 people instead of one or a few people), and the fact that they could be voted out of power if one misbehaves or they collude in a nefarious manner.

Even with giving delegates more trusted roles and the extra work it would take and cost the DAC, I think we could still automate enough of it to where we could compete in a big way with some centralized behemoths through lower fees (IE. Ebay and Pokerstars), provably fairness (IE. Pokerstars), and other ways depending on the industry. I have long stated that decentralized poker can be done this way. One of the things holding it back is the ability to combat collusion, but I believe it can be done as efficiently as centralized services with slight centralization of the DAC. I am certain this is a non-issue, it is just a matter of making slight sacrifices to decentralization. The recent conversations about Open Bazaar and Ebay also made me think of it again, as arbitrators will be needed in that industry as well.

Here are a few ways I can think of that delegates can be used in this manner. Don't take this as a complete list because there are many possibilities of this, most of which I will not be able to think of off the top of my head. These are the use cases that immediately come to mind.

Arbitration
Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Escrow - Abritration of disputes via multi-signature addresses.
Decentralized Poker - IE. - Policing Collusion and Bots - Confiscating funds from nefarious actors and giving them back to those that were cheated through the use of multi-signature addresses.

Moderation
"Legal" Decentralized Marketplaces - IE. Removing illegal items that are for sale in the marketplace
Decentralized Poker - IE. Policing Collusion and Bots - The detection of nefarious activity and investigation into players that have been reported.

Services
Decentralized Exchanges - IE. Multi-Token Decentralized Exchanges - Each delegate runs both a Bitcoin and BTSX client allowing exchange from one cryptocurrency/bitasset to another cryptocurrency in a sufficiently trust-less manner via multi-signature addresses.

Again.. I know that the appeal of DACs are the removal of trusted third parties, but in some cases they cannot be done away with. DPoS itself is inherently managed centralization, along with BTSX delegate price feeds, why not expand the roles of delegates beyond simply maintaining an updated client to expand DACs other industries?

I think there are some great ideas in here. I think you can use delegates for any of these purposes.

Delegates in my mind are just the DAC operators so you can use them to operate the DAC.

If the delegates are pseudo-anonymous this could be a good thing. I don't like totally anonymous but I also think that for some DACs which are politically controversial you cannot expect the delegates to be safe. It's going to be a DAC by DAC basis but the more politically controversial the features are the less people will want to be public as a delegate.

Reputation shouldn't require delegates to be public. In fact if you want things to be fair it can be more fair if something like a jury would be pseudo-anonymous. If the jury is not pseudo-anonymous or the witnesses are not pseudo-anonymous then they could easily be intimidated. If referees of a sporting event are not pseudo-anonymous they could be bribed or intimidated. When you have voting you need coercion resistance.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Why would you be more inclined to trust a completely anonymous entity (a delegate) over a registered company running a centralised service?

It would be the same as trusting a company to perform a centralized service, except that you trust the delegates (whom you can vote out) and most of the fat is trimmed and thus a DAC can most likely perform the service for much cheaper than a centralized counterpart. The point is to automate as much as possible and only require third party intervention where necessary.

- Cryptocurrencies cut down on payment processing fees.
- Decentralized technologies cut down on the costs of server hosting and other infrastructure costs.
- There would be no legal or regulatory costs due to it being ran on a decentralized network and no one (government etc) can shut it down.
- The security and privacy of your account is in your control (in the decentralized marketplace example).
- Decentralized poker could be provably fair for players (integrity of the deal) and the government would not be able to shut it down like the US shut down many poker sites on "black friday."

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I think the main point being that we can do many services cheaper than current popular services by automating as much of it as possible to where it is still mostly a decentralized autonomous company, and then only using delegates for trusted third party uses when absolutely necessary for the DAC to function.
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline Empirical1.1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
I like the idea of decentralised poker more and more. With low enough rake it might still be appealing especially as some major poker markets are dragging their heels on poker legislation.

I don't think collusion is a problem at most stakes but if it was you can avoid collusion and make it better (& faster) for recreational players by offering something like Pokerstars Zoom. http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/zoom/
I'm sure that would be technically hard to implement though.

Regards bots I doubt you could really combat them on decentralised poker, even if you could identify them they'd just get a new account pretty easily.

(So I mean the delegates shouldn't have to get involved there. For a poker specific DAC I could see delegates fulfilling other roles though more along marketing and update and development etc.)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 11:55:22 AM by Empirical1.1 »

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I think there are some great ideas in here. I think you can use delegates for any of these purposes.

Delegates in my mind are just the DAC operators so you can use them to operate the DAC.

Thanks, I am not claiming these ideas but I would just like to talk about them. I obviously agree that delegates could be used in more ways than simply maintaining an updated client, and it can open the door to make DACs for different industries where everything cannot be fully automated by a protocol. I am sure there are many use cases and I only mentioned a few of the ones that came to mind quickly.

If the delegates are pseudo-anonymous this could be a good thing. I don't like totally anonymous but I also think that for some DACs which are politically controversial you cannot expect the delegates to be safe. It's going to be a DAC by DAC basis but the more politically controversial the features are the less people will want to be public as a delegate.

Reputation shouldn't require delegates to be public. In fact if you want things to be fair it can be more fair if something like a jury would be pseudo-anonymous. If the jury is not pseudo-anonymous or the witnesses are not pseudo-anonymous then they could easily be intimidated. If referees of a sporting event are not pseudo-anonymous they could be bribed or intimidated. When you have voting you need coercion resistance.

I agree, on controversial DACs delegates should remain anonymous. I think we should seriously consider doing a separate DAC to compete with Ebay than the Open Bazaar "free market" DAC that others are discussing. I'm not sure Open Bazaar will be able to separate the drugs, guns, asassins, hacked accounts and credit cards, etc... from "legitimate" business.

Having a cleaner alternative would make it much easier to market to mainstream Ebay-like businesses and customers. I don't mean to sound like a prude, because I don't care what someone does, sells, or consumes as long as it isn't harming others. However, having drugs and such selling right beside legal items can cause it to stay as more of an underground market instead of a mainstream Ebay alternative.
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
I like the idea of decentralised poker more and more. With low enough rake it might still be appealing especially as some major poker markets are dragging their heels on poker legislation.

I agree it could be a "killer app". The rake could certainly be much lower than what currently exists, along with the immunity to politics and regulations.

I don't think collusion is a problem at most stakes but if it was you can avoid collusion and make it better (& faster) for recreational players by offering something like Pokerstars Zoom. http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/zoom/
I'm sure that would be technically hard to implement though.

I agree collusion is not an issue at most stakes and it can be thwarted with certain game types such as Fast fold poker with large player pools, heads up poker, and large multi table tournaments. However, that is only a portion of online poker offerings and I believe if it is possible for a centralized service to combat collusion in other game types then it is possible to do it in a more decentralized manner. It is just a matter of figuring out the best way to do it.

I wrote a detailed run down of ways to fight collusion and bots on a decentralized poker network. I need to update it as some of the things have possibly been solved (such as multi accounting) since then and I have thought (or people have brought to my attention) some improvements that could be made. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hcadwuj6ji633lf/v0.03%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx?dl=0

Regards bots I doubt you could really combat them on decentralised poker, even if you could identify them they'd just get a new account pretty easily.
There are many ways to detect and eliminate bots and you can do so with a decent success rate, but I agree it is challenging.. even centralized poker sites have trouble doing this. BM stated the FollowMyVote DAC will have an identity verification feature which could stop multi accounting though.

(So I mean the delegates shouldn't have to get involved there. For a poker specific DAC I could see delegates fulfilling other roles though more along marketing and update and development etc.)
They wouldn't need to get involved for a few game types, but I am talking about a full fledged poker service that offers every frame type. You will need third party intervention to make it happen.

I do agree that those are other ways delegates could get involved in DACs though. There are a lot of possibilities with DPoS in terms of utilizing delegates.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 12:21:09 PM by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline monsterer

It would be the same as trusting a company to perform a centralized service, except that you trust the delegates (whom you can vote out) and most of the fat is trimmed and thus a DAC can most likely perform the service for much cheaper than a centralized counterpart.

But an anonymous entity has zero risk associated with performing a scam and stealing from it's users. A registered company has a lot of risk associated with the same action, which is the entire point of having a company in the first place.

All the artificial trust mechanisms that might ever be possible to put in place to instill trust in an anonymous entity would be able to make such an entity less trustworthy than a registered company at best, simply because there is no legal recourse available.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
It would be the same as trusting a company to perform a centralized service, except that you trust the delegates (whom you can vote out) and most of the fat is trimmed and thus a DAC can most likely perform the service for much cheaper than a centralized counterpart.

But an anonymous entity has zero risk associated with performing a scam and stealing from it's users. A registered company has a lot of risk associated with the same action, which is the entire point of having a company in the first place.

All the artificial trust mechanisms that might ever be possible to put in place to instill trust in an anonymous entity would be able to make such an entity less trustworthy than a registered company at best, simply because there is no legal recourse available.

Mmk, in that case why are you using cryptocurrencies? I guess you analyzed each line of BTSX and BTCs code to make sure you are not being scammed? If Bitcoin or BTSX fails there is no recourse. If delegates collude to double spend there is no recourse. If someone 51%s Bitcoin there is no recourse. Why use decentralized technologies at all? How can you trust the mostly anonymous delegates don't collude with the price feed? How can you trust the next Bitcoin update won't have a back door to steal your wallet? How well did the centralization of Mt. Gox work out for its customers? BFL? Bitcoinica? Virtual Mining Company? PirateAt40? Enron? Bernie Madoff? All of these companies/services, the people that ran them were not anonymous and people still lost all or most of their money. Companies go bankrupt all the time, just because something is centralized doesn't mean it is automatically safer. Both decentralized and centralized services require trust to a point. How many of us read the entire BTSX code base before using it?

Why don't you stick to manipulated FIAT and expensive centralized known services so that you are safe, and the rest of us that don't mind the added risk but like the benefits can use the services I am describing here. If I had 10% of every EBay sell I've made back, the risk of being scammed would be worth it. Furthermore, if I had 75% of the rake I've paid playing poker back in my pocket, I'd be a rich man and could afford being scammed a time or two. That said the risk will be negligible as delegates are incentivized to do a good job by being paid to be delegates and can be voted out. It's not like someone's going to be selling a million dollar mansion on a decentralized market place or playing million dollar buy in poker games right off the bat. Over time as the services mature, trust will be achieved slowly. Trust is earned not given.

People care mostly about money and the costs of services, if a decentralized technology can perform a centralized service cheaper while still requiring some trust it could still be popular and profitable for shareholders.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 01:20:41 PM by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline monsterer

Mmk, in that case why are you using cryptocurrencies? I guess you analyzed each line of BTSX and BTCs code to make sure you are not being scammed? If Bitcoin or BTSX fails there is no recourse. If delegates collude to double spend there is no recourse. If someone 51%s

Is this your argument for why delegates are better than registered companies for handling centralised trust, or are you changing the subject to avoid the obvious conclusion?
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Method-X

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • VIRAL
    • View Profile
    • Learn to code
  • BTS: methodx
+5% Great post. I'm really liking the idea of a poker DAC. I think it's a natural fit.

How does PokerStars handle collusion?

Offline CoinHoarder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 639
  • In Cryptocoins I Trust
    • View Profile
Mmk, in that case why are you using cryptocurrencies? I guess you analyzed each line of BTSX and BTCs code to make sure you are not being scammed? If Bitcoin or BTSX fails there is no recourse. If delegates collude to double spend there is no recourse. If someone 51%s

Is this your argument for why delegates are better than registered companies for handling centralised trust, or are you changing the subject to avoid the obvious conclusion?

Everything I said was applicable. Excuse my tone in the last post, but I am annoyed that all of my ideas being ignored or immediately shut down without any discussion... this is just the latest example. (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9876.0)

Whereas registered companies can be sued/jailed and victims can sometimes be recompensated with success, decentralized companies can trim the fat and provide a cheaper service. It is a give and take situation.. some people will prefer to pay much higher fees with the "security" a known company provides and some will be willing to take a risk and save money by using a cheaper service. It comes down to how risk adverse or risk prone someone is.

Overtime if the delegates were proven trustworthy and the service got good reviews, the service could become popular and used for bigger dollar amounts or higher volume. Again, trust in a pseudo anonymous community is earned not given. Some people will be skeptical and stay away.. others will want to save money and use the service. Obviously if the delegates are scamming people then the service will become unpopular very quickly and they will lose the income stream that being a delegate would provide. Providing incentive for people to be honest is key.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 02:26:27 PM by CoinHoarder »
https://www.decentralized.tech/
Cryptocurrency Social Network
Market Data, Portfolios, Information, Links, Reviews, Forums, and Technologies

Offline luckybit

It's funny how everyone trusts Satoshi even though he is anonymous.

People are buying Bitcoins right now and at any time Satoshi could crash the price to $0 just by selling his stash.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+