Expanding the use cases for DACs - Using DPoS delegates as trusted third parties

[monsterer]

Take a glance at the thread I've started if you get a chance - I'd like to hear what you think about mitigating collusion in a trustless environment?

[CoinHoarder]

I've started a thread here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10071 about the existing issues with trustless, decentralised poker - I'd love to get your input

I think you are misunderstanding me. What I am proposing would be a DAC in which everything is automated and trustless whenever possible. I have always thought a decentralized poker DAC should implement a "mental poker" framework to automate most of its functions and provide trustless games as in the shuffle, deal, and integrity of game play. I have done a lot of research on it and I believe it is possible, if a system to stop collusion and the inefficiencies of the mental poker framework can be worked out well enough to provide real time gaming. Due to the heavy cryptography and multi party computations mental poker requires, it is challenging to make it fast enough to where the gaming experience would be fast enough so that it is similar to current centralized poker offerings.

However, a Mental Poker framework can only do so much as far as making decentralized poker possible, and for collusion to be policed effectively requires human interference and judgement. Although an algorithm can be made to make it easier to spot collusion, it cannot be relied upon blindly to do its job properly and it can only be used as a crutch for humans to make the final decisions. In some cases something that would look like collusion to the algorithm may be random and honest game play, therefore you need people whom can make the final decisions.

[monsterer]

I've started a thread here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10071 about the existing issues with trustless, decentralised poker - I'd love to get your input

[monsterer]

I imagine it's something along the lines of providing low/no collusion game types like heads up poker, fast fold poker, and multi-table tournaments.

No it's not - it's much more fundamental than that - but lets discuss it in the different thread, as its particular to poker, or at least proof of human

[CoinHoarder]

Some people (me included) are not happy with the amount of rake EBay and centralized poker sites charge, it could be done much cheaper as a DAC. Using DAC technology allows us to compete in many industries on a financial level by trimming the fat and automating most tasks. Although this is only a couple ideas, they are both some of the more apparent use cases where arbitration is needed. We are talking about Billion dollar industries.. I don't see why you would not be interested in going after them simply based on the fact that you can "trust" known companies and are "safe" with them... which is not a fact as companies go busto all the time.

I think decentralized poker is something that might not be as impossible as you think. I've got some ideas - if you'd like to discuss it, we should probably do so in a different thread.

I imagine it's something along the lines of providing low/no collusion game types like heads up poker, fast fold poker, and multi-table tournaments. Any other forms of poker need some form of arbitrators and reversible transactions due to collusion and bots. I don't see why we need to move the discussion, this is one of the biggest use cases for utilizing trusted third parties, so if you can prove me wrong that would be interesting. That would only leave decentralized market places as the biggest use case. Also there is competition in the industry (Nxt is crowd funding as I type but they are mute on technical details as they realize there will likely be competition), so maybe our conversation will stay more easily in between us/Bitshares community in this thread.

My idea was originally to use a "cheating market place" (I call it a collusion dashboard or something like that in my paper). It is basically a decentralized market where people are paid a percentage of the rake and other fees to check for collusion and act as arbitrators. Since writing the paper I have kind of shifted my view on that as there are a lot of dynamics that go along with it. I think possibly giving delegates this role is better as then we can vote in people we trust to do a good job and people that are knowledgeable on the subject. It would be less subject to random manipulation as we have control of who the arbitrators are, and can vote them out if they act up. Anyways.. here is an in depth review of my idea. I wrote this a few months back, but I just made a few edits of some things I learned or changed my mind about. It still has the "collusion marketplace" in it instead of delegate arbitrators though. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hcadwuj6ji633lf/v0.03%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx?dl=0

If you had something else in mind then please do share it, I would be interested in hearing it. I think any way you go about it, arbitrators will be needed in the form of delegates or "collusion market" participants.. at least for all game types and variants of poker. By only doing heads up games, rush poker, or multi table tournaments you are only servicing a small portion of the industry. I am more interested in a poker DAC that could serve all portions of the industry, as I think it will be more popular and profitable.

Ebay on the other hand, you've got a massive problem due to escrow of physical goods. Even ebay doesn't have a solution to this problem, which is why paypal has reversible charges. Again, the best you can do is to emulate the service they provide for a cheaper cost - unless you have all the delegates open up their houses to accept deliveries!

Yes, this is the point.. replicate Ebay/Paypal's business for cheaper. A DAC could do way less than 10% to 15% fees. The only time arbitration is needed is when a transaction is disputed by the buyer or the seller, otherwise everything is automated. I imagine if you also use some form of reputation like Ebay the amount of disputed transactions pales in comparison to mostly happy parties. By the use of a multi signature address arbitrators will not be needed if both parties are happy.

[monsterer]

Some people (me included) are not happy with the amount of rake EBay and centralized poker sites charge, it could be done much cheaper as a DAC. Using DAC technology allows us to compete in many industries on a financial level by trimming the fat and automating most tasks. Although this is only a couple ideas, they are both some of the more apparent use cases where arbitration is needed. We are talking about Billion dollar industries.. I don't see why you would not be interested in going after them simply based on the fact that you can "trust" known companies and are "safe" with them... which is not a fact as companies go busto all the time.

I think decentralised poker is something that might not be as impossible as you think. I've got some ideas - if you'd like to discuss it, we should probably do so in a different thread.

Ebay on the other hand, you've got a massive problem due to escrow of physical goods. Even ebay doesn't have a solution to this problem, which is why paypal has reversible charges. Again, the best you can do is to emulate the service they provide for a cheaper cost - unless you have all the delegates open up their houses to accept deliveries!

[donkeypong]

Fascinating discussion. There are possibilities here.

[CoinHoarder]

... at the benefit of being much cheaper to use. Cost is the main benefit in my reasoning as to why people would want to use such services.

I think cost isn't such a major issue in the kinds of things we have centralised companies controlling now. For example, exchanges for trading one currency into another have pretty low fees already. Could it be cheaper? Yes, but I personally would want that at the risk of my money going away.

The risk of your money disappearing is still there, as it is inevitable with anything having to do with cryptocurrencies that are not stored properly and services you have no control over. One hack and it could all be gone a la Mt. Gox.

Being cheaper is one of the biggest selling points for cryptocurrencies/cryptoequity. This benefit can be spread through other industries as Bitshares is already doing, trusted third parties or not. I admit the decentralized multi token exchange was the poorest of use cases out of the 3 I mentioned in the OP, yet it could still be a profitable DAC.

Decentralized poker sites and market places are impossible without arbitrators. I would love if it was possible to do away with them, but that impossible. A system needs to be implemented that is sufficiently trustable and yet has the ability to mediate disputes and police the games.

I think poker in particular is a very interesting point and one that is really crying out for a trustless system - no one wants spyware installed on their machines which regularly take screenshots of the players's desktop to make sure they're not running bots (as you probably know, this is the online poker industry's current 'solution' to the bot problem).

It is impossible to have trustless poker as collusion and bots would be rampant. Trusted third parties are necessary to police the games. This is why I am proposing a system that is as trustless as possible meanwhile requiring third party intervention.

People seem to see the value in decentralized marketplaces, in which arbitrators are necessary for them to function. It is not that big of a stretch to implement the same schema in other businesses or industries if the benefits are sizable enough.

My point is, this is a solved problem. Companies provide this service already. What you're proposing will decrease the security in an industry which is currently completely full of scams, bad practices and bad publicity.

Cheers, Paul.

Some people (me included) are not happy with the amount of rake EBay and centralized poker sites charge, it could be done much cheaper as a DAC. Using DAC technology allows us to compete in many industries on a financial level by trimming the fat and automating most tasks. Although this is only a couple ideas, they are both some of the more apparent use cases where arbitration is needed. We are talking about Billion dollar industries.. I don't see why you would not be interested in going after them simply based on the fact that you can "trust" known companies and are "safe" with them... which is not a fact as companies go busto all the time.

[monsterer]

... at the benefit of being much cheaper to use. Cost is the main benefit in my reasoning as to why people would want to use such services.

I think cost isn't such a major issue in the kinds of things we have centralised companies controlling now. For example, exchanges for trading one currency into another have pretty low fees already. Could it be cheaper? Yes, but I personally would want that at the risk of my money going away.

Decentralized poker sites and market places are impossible without arbitrators. I would love if it was possible to do away with them, but that impossible. A system needs to be implemented that is sufficiently trustable and yet has the ability to mediate disputes and police the games.

I think poker in particular is a very interesting point and one that is really crying out for a trustless system - no one wants spyware installed on their machines which regularly take screenshots of the players's desktop to make sure they're not running bots (as you probably know, this is the online poker industry's current 'solution' to the bot problem).

People seem to see the value in decentralized marketplaces, in which arbitrators are necessary for them to function. It is not that big of a stretch to implement the same schema in other businesses or industries if the benefits are sizable enough.

My point is, this is a solved problem. Companies provide this service already. What you're proposing will decrease the security in an industry which is currently completely full of scams, bad practices and bad publicity.

Cheers, Paul.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

There is a big difference between trustless and trusted, as you know. These things are binary opposites. What you're proposing is a middle ground solution which will be more vulnerable to exploitation than the established method of handling trust.

.... at the benefit of being much cheaper to use. Cost is the main benefit in my reasoning as to why people would want to use such services. Decentralized poker sites and market places are impossible without arbitrators. I would love if it was possible to do away with them, but that impossible. A system needs to be implemented that is sufficiently trustable and yet has the ability to mediate disputes and police the games.

Yes, DPOS is this system, but the asking delegates to produce blocks and asking them to handle critically sensitive decisions and processes using their own judgement are two different things.

Yes they are different things, but trust is still involved in both. DPoS is not "trustless" either, it is trusted in that the stake holders trust the majority of delegates to not act in a nefarious manner. Handling critically sensitive decisions and processes will need to work in the same way.

By providing incentive for people to do the right thing and allowing the ability for stake holders to remove their power if they do not, risk is mitigated in the best way possible. Similar to how employees with jobs which require a company's trust are vetted via interviews (delegate campaigning), paid (delegate pay) to remain trustworthy, and can be fired if they are not (delegate voting.) That along with having a majority rules voting system is the key to being able to give psuedo-anonymous trusted decision making to people. You aren't assuming that all of them will be trustworthy, just that the majority of them will be.

Over time users will trust the network more and more as long as nothing bad happens, similar to how companies gain trust. This is a really stupid/random example, but if someone randomly stops you while you're walking down the street and asks you if you want to buy a hot dog, you will probably say no. However, over time you see that same person asking other people the same question and them taking him up on it (the risk prone folk). None of them die or get sick, the hot dog is cheaper than what you could get elsewhere, and others say they are delicious, then you may go out on a limb and try a hot dog one day. After all of that, given that you really like hot dogs and that you don't know his name, address, etc, would you still not trust the random hot dog guy??

I just don't see the benefits you list are worth the inherent risk, especially in a nascent and delicate ecosystem which aims to gain acceptance from the outside world.

People seem to see the value in decentralized marketplaces, in which arbitrators are necessary for them to function. It is not that big of a stretch to implement the same schema in other businesses or industries if the benefits are sizable enough. I believe if a service is much cheaper than its competitors it will be able to gain a sizable market share... if the service they provide is good and they are proven trustworthy over time. I don't expect any service like this to be released and immediately crush the competition (Ebay/PokerStars), but over time I think it could gain a sizable market share if everything worked as advertised and could possibly be very lucrative for shareholders.

[CoinHoarder]

Great post. I'm really liking the idea of a poker DAC. I think it's a natural fit.

How does PokerStars handle collusion?

1. They can see all hole cards to analyze hands. Being able to see hole cards is necessary to be able to combat collusion effectively in game types where collusion is more profitable/likely. I am suggesting the idea that all hole cards be publicized on a delay, similar to how live poker tournament streaming and TV shows do it. This is different to the current online poker offerings, but it is the only way I could think of that would be in a "trustless" manner.

1a. Otherwise if only delegates could view hole cards they could gain an unfair advantage while playing or relay that information to other players whom would gain an unfair advantage against players that didn't have that information. It will take some getting used to for poker players, as in most non-televised poker you can only see what your opponent had if it goes to showdown or they show you their cards. However, I think this is something that poker players could deal with if the rake is much cheaper than current online poker sites.. which I think it very well could be. It puts more of an emphasis on being game theory optimal, which is where most poker players think poker strategy is headed in the near future anyways. You will still get dealt 2 cards every hand with a random deal, and have chances to outplay the other players as people will still make poor/exploitable decisions.. people are not perfect.

2. They have full control over the "poker chips" and cash in/cash out gateways, so they can recompensate people whom were cheated and confiscate funds from people whom did the cheating.

2a. I think we could give Delegates control over the "poker chips" via Delegate controlled multi-signature addresses with which they can reverse payments and control the cash in/cash out gateways. For someone to play poker, they would need to deposit to a multi-signature address and then they will be given "credit" with which they can play in games.. similar to a poker site balance where you play with PokerStarsDollars or FullTiltDollars.. not actual dollars. When someone requests a cash out their play history should be checked to see if there is evidence of collusion or foul play, thus the gateways are controlled.

3. They use identity verification to prevent users from registering multiple accounts.

3a. BM stated the FollowMyVote DAC will have this ability, so we at least know it is possible. We could tie in the identity verification feature from this DAC or implement our own for a Poker DAC.

4. With the ability to see hole cards, reverse transactions, control the payment gateways, and stop multi-accounting, you then have all the tools needed to combat collusion.

4a. Algorithms should be made to detect every kind of collusion that is possible to highlight suspicious players, along with a mechanism for players to report other players for suspected foul play. People then need to analyze the hands and act as arbitrators, which is where I was suggesting delegates be used in a majority rules type manner. In the paper I posted above, I came up with another way this can be done but the dynamics would need to be fine tuned. You could create a "collusion dashboard/marketplace" where suspicious players/hands as pointed out by the algorithm and reported players/hands show up and allow the players to police themselves. You can give players incentive to police the games by offering a percentage of the rake for their participation in doing so, and come up with some sort of voting mechanism which would determine if colluding took place or not.

If you read the link of the paper I wrote up thread (which needs to be updated as I have some improvements in mind), you can get an idea of what the collusion algorithm will be looking for and how it can help in the detection of collusion. Poker sites don't release specific information on how they detect collusion and bots, but I am certain they have an algorithm similar to what I described in the paper to make it easier to do so (along with having a team that reviews hand histories and allowing players to report other players they suspect of colluding.)

[monsterer]

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.

There is a big difference between trustless and trusted, as you know. These things are binary opposites. What you're proposing is a middle ground solution which will be more vulnerable to exploitation than the established method of handling trust. Yes, DPOS is this system, but the asking delegates to produce blocks and asking them to handle critically sensitive decisions and processes using their own judgement are two different things.

I just don't see the benefits you list are worth the inherent risk, especially in a nascent and delicate ecosystem which aims to gain acceptance from the outside world.

[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.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

[Method-X]

Great post. I'm really liking the idea of a poker DAC. I think it's a natural fit.

How does PokerStars handle collusion?

[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?

[CoinHoarder]

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.

[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.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

[CoinHoarder]

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.

[Empirical1.1]

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.)

[CoinHoarder]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ..

[monsterer]

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

[CoinHoarder]

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?