• silverpill@mitra.social
    7·
    7 months ago

    @nihilist @monero Consider the following situations:

    - Bob and Arbitrator are colluding against Alice
    - Bob and Arbitrator are the same person

    I think this system needs a higher authority to function properly. And there’s a simple non-technical solution to this problem. If you don’t agree with Arbitrator’s ruling, you make the case public and provide proofs. As a result, Arbitrator’s reputation is destroyed.

    Someone can even create a rating service similar to @kycnotme that will list arbitrators with good reputation

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      5·
      7 months ago

      I think every arbitrator is just going to get 1 good and 1 bad review from every dispute, then.

      But, in reality, people who are happy don’t leave reviews. So, likely, all arbitrators are going to have a negative rating.

    • iiGxC@slrpnk.net
      4·
      7 months ago

      Could also have a system where multiple arbritrators separately decide on a case, say 3 arbitrators per dispute by default, and if there’s a disagreement, more arbitrators decide until above x% of them agree on the resolution

      • nihilistOP
        3·
        7 months ago

        yea but if all the arbitrators are corrupt on the network side, no matter how many you put on the arbitration the outcome wouldnt really change right ?

    • nihilistOP
      21·
      7 months ago

      to that i would reply, that the arbitrators better be honest and behave correctly because the reputation of their network (ex:reto) is at stake, and yea definitely could be a good idea to have an external rating service, so that over time the scammy haveno networks are called out, and people avoid them

      • itsmect
        3·
        7 months ago

        exactly. haveno can be a cash cow for the arbitrators if they keep it running. The more they scam, especially on high value disputes, the higher the chance traders will just create their own network, killing the cow in the process.