Trust Building List - Ron Gross

[mobodick]

I am willing to sell insurance about certain people ... a subset of my FT list.
But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?

I don't expect that you personally will give such insurance for free. But there are some situations where people might do this.

Two individuals might choose to mutually assure each other's performance. Or someone might agree to underwrite a retailer's performance in return for a discount at that retailer.

Mobodick thought that this kind of assurance was like Matthew's bet. It isn't. It's like how Matthew's bet would be if there was a whole web of assurance. Suppose Matthew's performance was underwritten by MagicalTux, Gavin Andresen and Vladimir, and furthermore that those guarantors' performance was underwritten by others. That would be enough to satisfy most people.

I don't get it.
Even if Mathews performance would have been underwritten in ths way, would there have been a reason to trust him in hindsight?
If not, then this system would have failed, and propably not only in this obvious case.

[mobodick]

For the amounts over lets say 10 BTC I agree this would be a good measure, pay like .5 btc to a trusted party to perform a short interview where the person would have to take the webcam and show the outside of the home so it can be tracked down on google maps. Thats kinda difficult to fake.

Yes, this is an example of the kind of ankering in the real world that is needed for extended trust relations.

[jasinlee]

I know not everyone here is willing to give out info as it is intended to be anonymous if they choose, but the random bum in a hoodie I cannot see the face of that walks up to me on the street and asks me to borrow (briefly) about $200 (20btc~) I think the chances are pretty slim unless he has a weapon.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I don't get it. Even if Mathews performance would have been underwritten in ths way, would there have been a reason to trust him in hindsight? If not, then this system would have failed, and propably not only in this obvious case.

Matts bet (as stupid as it was) does highlight that trust has limits.  Prior to the bet I would have trusted Matt with a couple BTC, maybe even a couple hundred BTC, but 10,000 BTC requires a lot of trust more than just someone's word.  80,000 BTC even with a signed promissory note is just silly, ask your bank if they will give you a $1,000,000 unsecured signature loan.

The issue is betteors looked at only THEIR tx not Matt's tx.  Bettors should have asked themselves this questions:
"Would I be willing to transfer 10,000 BTC to an address Matt controls and trust him to transfer it back?"

If the answer is no they shouldn't have placed the bet.  It indicates they didn't trust Matt to pay 10,000 BTC based only on his word.  Matt's bettors while individually placing small bets, were collectively (maybe unknowingly) trusting Matt to pay almost a million dollars. Someone betting 50 BTC wasn't trusting Matt to pay 50 BTC.  Why would Matt pay 50 BTC and default on the other 79,950 BTC?  Obviously he wouldn't.  Either everyone was going to get paid or nobody would.    I don't trust anyone that much and certainly not anyone online.


"Trust-bonds" could be setp with limits  (i.e. I pledge 5 BTC that ripper234 won't bust a trade of up to 100 BTC).  The cap could be set based on how much the person trusted the other person. Trust bonds should also be revocable with a delay.  I trust ripper234 (to use him as an example) but if opened a "magic investing biz offering 7% per week" I should be able to revoke that trust.  His actions make me trust him less (enough so that I would no longer want to back it with funds).  The fact that he hasn't scammed anyone yet (in this scenario) doesn't matter.  It is possible that someone's actions can reduce trust long before they commit fraud.

For large transaction escrow is the only way to go.  Vlad made a 5,000 BTC bet but it was escrowed.  Neither party had to trust the other (although they did need to trust the escrow agent).  Where "trust-bonds" could be useful is smaller tx where the incentive to scam is less and the complexity and cost of an escrow is not worthwhile.  The only bad thing is I can't see how this can be done completely decentralized.  Semi-decentralized maybe ...

[mobodick]

I don't get it.
Even if Mathews performance would have been underwritten in ths way, would there have been a reason to trust him in hindsight?

The underwriting doesn't affect how much you trust Matthew. It affects how risky the transaction is, because if Matthew doesn't pay then the underwriters can be asked to pay.

Then the underwriting should happen on a per-deal basis (i interpreted your idea as a general 'trust underwriting' at first).
Otherwise the underwriters have no idea of knowing how much risk they take.

[mobodick]

I don't get it. Even if Mathews performance would have been underwritten in ths way, would there have been a reason to trust him in hindsight? If not, then this system would have failed, and propably not only in this obvious case.

Matts bet (as stupid as it was) does highlight that trust has limits.  Prior to the bet I would have trusted Matt with a couple BTC, maybe even a couple hundred BTC but 10,000 BTC requires a lot of trust (and 80,000 BTC even with a signed promissary note is just silly.  Think your bank will give you a $1,000,000 promissory note).   

If the bettors stopped and looked at it this way:
"Would I transfer my 10,000 BTC to an address Matt controls and trust him to transfer it back?"

Most probably would have said no.  If they said no then they logically shouldn't have placed an unescrowed wager.   Matt's bettors while individually bet small sums collectively were trusting Matt to pay almost a million dollars.  Someone betting 20 BTC wasn't trusting Matt to pay 20 BTC (why would he pay 20 BTC and default on the 79,980 BTC) they were trusting him to pay 80,000 BTC.   I don't trust anyone that much.  Period. 



"Trust-bonds" could have limits.  They wouldn't need to be open ended.  i.e. I pledge 5 BTC that ripper234 won't bust a trade of up to 100 BTC.  I trust ripper234 moderately well but if he pulled a "open bet 10,000 BTC with no escrow" obviously that goes beyond how much I trust him.  Obviously trust bonds would need to be revokable (maybe with a delay).  I trust ripper234 (to use him as an example) but if opened a "magic investing biz offering 7% per week" I should be able to revoke that trust.

For large transaction escrow is the only way to go.  Vlad made a 5,000 BTC bet but it was escrowed.  Neither party had to trust the other (although they did need to trust the escrow agent).  Where "trust-bonds" could be useful is smaller tx where the incentive to scam is less and the complexity and cost of an escrow is not worthwhile.  For example if I buy a Steam game from some seller for 2 BTC I am not going to escrow that.  Still if there are two sellers and one has a significant amount of trust-bonds pledged towards him well I probably would pick the more trusted one.

The issue still remains how do you handle disputes.  Still just kinda thinking out loud here but I could see a system of decentralized arbiters. Maybe people that are trusted enough can opt-in as an arbiter (collecting a fee for arbitration) and the system randomly selects arbiter in the case of a dispute.  If an arbiter acts in bad faith well there is a consequence, people could pull their trust-bonds and the bad arbiter not only is not longer an arbiter but also no longer is trusted by other traders.

The only bad thing is I can't see how this can be done completely decentralized.  Semi-decentralized maybe ...

Let's condese this:
Trust needs accountability.

[mobodick]

OP, in case you go through with the list i would suggest (with stress) to also collect data on the amount of BTC involved in the successfull transactions and present a mean.
That way you can know for what sum that person is generally trusted.

[Rassah]

[Evolvex]

Thanks for list, I'm glad I can look at that and at least see who "other" people are trusting at the moment.

On the note of insurance - I think thats possible, if it was underwriten correctly with the correct premium for the size of risk... why not - thats what insurance companies do today (I have worked as an insurance broker a long long time ago so do have a basic understanding of mechinisms involved... not that I can remember any of the specific's nowdays ).

I'd like to make that list one day, but there's time for that.

[mobodick]

Thanks for list, I'm glad I can look at that and at least see who "other" people are trusting at the moment.

On the note of insurance - I think thats possible, if it was underwriten correctly with the correct premium for the size of risk... why not - thats what insurance companies do today (I have worked as an insurance broker a long long time ago so do have a basic understanding of mechinisms involved... not that I can remember any of the specific's nowdays ).

I'd like to make that list one day, but there's time for that.

No, you will see which people ripper234 is trusting.
Then you'll have to consider whether you trust ripper234.

[Rassah]

There needs to be a "I know where you live" rating.  I suggest "IWKYL."

"I will kill you, later?"

[ripper234]

If anyone whom I don't currently know/trust wants to try and get me to add him to my ID column, you can try sending me some of these to ron.gross@gmail.com:


1. Good quality scan of ID/passport
2. Facebook/LinkedIn account
3. Any other details you think can help

I will of course keep any details you wish confidential.
I am not promising to add you to my ID trust list ... I will consider the entire "evidence pile" and choose whether it's sufficient for me, or not.

Adding this to the op.

[ripper234]

I am willing to sell insurance about certain people ... a subset of my FT list.
But why would you expect that I give such insurance for free?

I don't expect that you personally will give such insurance for free. But there are some situations where people might do this.

Two individuals might choose to mutually assure each other's performance. Or someone might agree to underwrite a retailer's performance in return for a discount at that retailer.

Mobodick thought that this kind of assurance was like Matthew's bet. It isn't. It's like how Matthew's bet would be if there was a whole web of assurance. Suppose Matthew's performance was underwritten by MagicalTux, Gavin Andresen and Vladimir, and furthermore that those guarantors' performance was underwritten by others. That would be enough to satisfy most people.

This. I want.

[ripper234]

OP, in case you go through with the list i would suggest (with stress) to also collect data on the amount of BTC involved in the successfull transactions and present a mean.
That way you can know for what sum that person is generally trusted.

What do you mean "in case"? The list is posted.

I am not currently comfortable with publicly exposing specific details like amount of BTC or other specific tx details. Even a mean tx amount is too much for my privacy needs.

Also, those parties have some privacy needs of their owns, which should be accounted for.

[ripper234]

There needs to be a "I know where you live" rating.  I suggest "IWKYL."

That list is currently too short ... I don't want to complicate things too much.

[mobodick]

If anyone whom I don't currently know/trust wants to try and get me to add him to my ID column, you can try sending me some of these to ron.gross@gmail.com:


1. Good quality scan of ID/passport
2. Facebook/LinkedIn account
3. Any other details you think can help

I will of course keep any details you wish confidential.
I am not promising to add you to my ID trust list ... I will consider the entire "evidence pile" and choose whether it's sufficient for me, or not.

Adding this to the op.

This way, you're creating a trust issue with yourself.

Why would you trust ID's and facebook accounts? They can be faked.
And as an extention to this, why would other people trust you trusting potentially fake ID's or facebook pages?
Can you actually check ID's and passports? If not they are worthless to you.

And why should people trust you with such information?
Because you said so in a forum post?
That's a pretty poor base for trust.

[mobodick]

OP, in case you go through with the list i would suggest (with stress) to also collect data on the amount of BTC involved in the successfull transactions and present a mean.
That way you can know for what sum that person is generally trusted.

What do you mean "in case"? The list is posted.

I am not currently comfortable with publicly exposing specific details like amount of BTC or other specific tx details. Even a mean tx amount is too much for my privacy needs.

Also, those parties have some privacy needs of their owns, which should be accounted for.

Yet such information is essential for assessing risk.
Such info is no good to me if i want to make a BTC3000 deal and the info is based on BTC0.5 deals.

[ripper234]

If anyone whom I don't currently know/trust wants to try and get me to add him to my ID column, you can try sending me some of these to ron.gross@gmail.com:


1. Good quality scan of ID/passport
2. Facebook/LinkedIn account
3. Any other details you think can help

I will of course keep any details you wish confidential.
I am not promising to add you to my ID trust list ... I will consider the entire "evidence pile" and choose whether it's sufficient for me, or not.

Adding this to the op.

Also, 4. Video chatting with me is another way to increase ID trust.

[Evolvex]

Thanks for list, I'm glad I can look at that and at least see who "other" people are trusting at the moment.

On the note of insurance - I think thats possible, if it was underwriten correctly with the correct premium for the size of risk... why not - thats what insurance companies do today (I have worked as an insurance broker a long long time ago so do have a basic understanding of mechinisms involved... not that I can remember any of the specific's nowdays ).

I'd like to make that list one day, but there's time for that.

No, you will see which people ripper234 is trusting.
Then you'll have to consider whether you trust ripper234.

Yes I stand corrected - very true indeed. I'd have more trust in someone that others show trust towards however, as supposed to a random that no one has any trust for - but ultimately yes, its down to who I actually trust (no one yet, I must admit lol).

[ripper234]

This way, you're creating a trust issue with yourself.

Why would you trust ID's and facebook accounts? They can be faked.
And as an extention to this, why would other people trust you trusting potentially fake ID's or facebook pages?
Can you actually check ID's and passports? If not they are worthless to you.

And why should people trust you with such information?
Because you said so in a forum post?
That's a pretty poor base for trust.

I said trust will be built on various types of evidence ... and I will be the final judge.
Forum posting history is also a strong indicator for me.

You are completely free not to trust my judgement.

As to why I consider the above as valid evidence, please check out Why I Trust Patrick Harnett. So far this trust has paid off for me.