Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A decentralized anonymous marketplace

mailman.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#21

Post by chippy »

runeks wrote: post #14

As far as I can see, the essential problem with decentralized anonymous marketplaces is that reviews need to cost money. Plain and simple. Good reviews have great value, so they need to have a non-zero price. A vendor's review history is the indicator by which you assess whether a vendor is trustworthy or not, and a vendor should have to pay to achieve a trustworthy reputation - if good reviews are free, and you can…

Every seller who sells their product is able to review a buyer. It costs them.

Every buyer who buys something from a seller can review them. It's part of the cost of the goods.

Escrow - same deal.

Edits - this does seem too simple. Is it just naive? Perhaps it doesn't exclude circular transactions and gaming it.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#22

Post by logicchains »

As a market anarchist, I think it's important to point out that the concept of 'reputation' plays a significant role in many justifications of how a market may function without regulation or any other form of state oversight.

Making a market completely anonymous significantly limits the role reputation can play, which leads me to wonder whether some of the standard arguments for the effectiveness of markets don't apply in this case.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#23

Post by DanielBMarkham »

celticninja wrote: post #18
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

This was what the internet was supposed to be all along, correct? A place where data can move freely from point to point without oversight or control from a central authority. Strange that we seem to have to keep trying to get back to where we started.

this is not about data, this is about the transacting of physical goods over the internet. I am not sure you understand a) what the OP is suggesting or b) what you are saying.

Nope, I got it. I conflated "data" and "purchases", mainly because they are both transactional, and the difference between pure data and physical goods is decreasing by the day.

Thanks for pointing out the difference, though. I should have been clearer in my comment.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#24

Post by ap22213 »

runeks wrote: post #14

As far as I can see, the essential problem with decentralized anonymous marketplaces is that reviews need to cost money. Plain and simple. Good reviews have great value, so they need to have a non-zero price. A vendor's review history is the indicator by which you assess whether a vendor is trustworthy or not, and a vendor should have to pay to achieve a trustworthy reputation - if good reviews are free, and you can…

It doesn't help me to know that an anonymous person had tipped an anonymous vendor. That doesn't add much value.

However, it would be sufficient if I could somehow determine that someone that I knew had tipped the vendor.

Of course, I don't want my friends to see that I had tipped someone, or all of those of whom I have tipped. I just want it to be possible that they can see my tip, within an aggregate poll, only if and when dealing with that vendor.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#25

Post by runeks »

hendzen wrote: post #13

Fun fact: the original Satoshi bitcoin code included a partially completed distributed market system. Check out the file market.cpp in version 0.1.0. That said, some major challenges (I've done a bit of thinking about this) - First: Sybil attacks on the reputation system. The author alluded to this but the solution given was vaguely specified and somewhat reminiscent of social network driven overlays like Tonika that…

> Fun fact: the original Satoshi bitcoin code included a partially completed distributed market system. Check out the file market.cpp in version 0.1.0.

For the curious; content of market.cpp and market.h: http://pastebin.com/aa82ajub

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#26

Post by pliny »

logicchains wrote: post #22

As a market anarchist, I think it's important to point out that the concept of 'reputation' plays a significant role in many justifications of how a market may function without regulation or any other form of state oversight. Making a market completely anonymous significantly limits the role reputation can play, which leads me to wonder whether some of the standard arguments for the effectiveness of markets don't app…

One of the goals in the OP:

>* Allow users to maintain a pseudonymous identity that carries anonymous trust across transactions.

i.e. anonymous as in it's difficult to establish a real world identity for sellers not anonymous as in no persistent identities at all.

Bootstrapping such a marketplace is obviously difficult, since it's never safe to buy from someone without reputation but everybody starts without reputation - it might be possible to demand some proof-of-work-money to establish a marketplace identity, but I'm not sure where the money would go.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#27

Post by runeks »

iamsalman wrote: post #12

My 2 cents: The element of trust is primary for any financial transaction. There's a reason why eBay Amazon et al employ thousands for conflict resolution b/w buyers and sellers. I wouldn't mind going on SilkRoad for acquiring something which I otherwise cannot but for items which are available elsewhere, I don't mind giving up tiny bit of control while transacting on a commercial platform like eBay.

Escrow services would have to be an integral part of the architecture.

The buyer pays the vendor via an, initially, unsigned multisig 2-of-3 transaction, and the goods are sent when the buyer, the vendor and the escrow service each hold a copy. When the buyer receives the items, he signs the transaction and sends it to the vendor, who signs it and it's valid.

If a dispute occurs, the escrow service will have to decide the case, and side with whichever party it finds most credible. A reputation system for escrow services will be as important as one for vendors, as far as I can see, and they need to be compensated for their service, of course.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#28

Post by liamzebedee »

runeks wrote: post #25
hendzen wrote: post #13

Fun fact: the original Satoshi bitcoin code included a partially completed distributed market system. Check out the file market.cpp in version 0.1.0. That said, some major challenges (I've done a bit of thinking about this) - First: Sybil attacks on the reputation system. The author alluded to this but the solution given was vaguely specified and somewhat reminiscent of social network driven overlays like Tonika that…

> Fun fact: the original Satoshi bitcoin code included a partially completed distributed market system. Check out the file market.cpp in version 0.1.0. For the curious; content of market.cpp and market.h: http://pastebin.com/aa82ajub

This system was spread out among other files, including a review system and such. The commit where Satoshi has removed it provides a nice overview:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5253d1ab77fab1995e...

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#29

Post by logicchains »

pliny wrote: post #26
logicchains wrote: post #22

As a market anarchist, I think it's important to point out that the concept of 'reputation' plays a significant role in many justifications of how a market may function without regulation or any other form of state oversight. Making a market completely anonymous significantly limits the role reputation can play, which leads me to wonder whether some of the standard arguments for the effectiveness of markets don't app…

One of the goals in the OP: >* Allow users to maintain a pseudonymous identity that carries anonymous trust across transactions. i.e. anonymous as in it's difficult to establish a real world identity for sellers not anonymous as in no persistent identities at all. Bootstrapping such a marketplace is obviously difficult, since it's never safe to buy from someone without reputation but everybody starts without reputati…

But if the identity is not connected to a real world identity, there is no legal recourse if that identity cheats you. Most who advocate a pure free market still accept the need for a legal system (not necessarily a State-based one), such that for instance people who take your money without delivering the good may be sued.

An anonymous market means that there's no legal recourse if someone cheats you or steals from you.

Re: A decentralized anonymous marketplace

#30

Post by hendzen »

ap22213 wrote: post #24
runeks wrote: post #14

As far as I can see, the essential problem with decentralized anonymous marketplaces is that reviews need to cost money. Plain and simple. Good reviews have great value, so they need to have a non-zero price. A vendor's review history is the indicator by which you assess whether a vendor is trustworthy or not, and a vendor should have to pay to achieve a trustworthy reputation - if good reviews are free, and you can…

It doesn't help me to know that an anonymous person had tipped an anonymous vendor. That doesn't add much value. However, it would be sufficient if I could somehow determine that someone that I knew had tipped the vendor. Of course, I don't want my friends to see that I had tipped someone, or all of those of whom I have tipped. I just want it to be possible that they can see my tip, within an aggregate poll, only if…

Perfect application for a cryptographic one way accumulator.

See section 5.2 of http://www.cs.stevens.edu/~mdemare/pubs/owa.pdf

Post reply on HN