Have you ever thought of bringing back the Middleman - but decentralized?

[oathprotocol]

I understand the intention behind this, however, I don't see how any community can be totally unbiased. It is simply impossible, and a fee based model would easily be corrupted.

The blockchain is the only middleman that matters in crypto, why would the community need another one? Scams are the more reason why folks should be careful how and to whom the spend their coins. Anything centralized can be manipulated to benefit whoever is running it. A bad idea if you ask me.

Bitcoin was created to cut out the middleman and eliminate the need for trust.
Yes there are hacks and scams happening and decent people are being affected but that is the cost of having a decentralised and open currency we have and enjoy.
I can see the point of the article and it is possible that some form of arbritige could be formed,
What kind of power would they have though?

Valid Point! However, it is also important to point out that trust is not being eliminated, it is just reduced. We still need to trust the system, the coder, the contracts and the technology - all of them being created by human beings. The Power, if you will, is that they can give a judgement based on the evidence provided by the Disputants. It is not preserved for any PoS-like algorithms who would give more weight to your voice if you stake more tokens or are more experienced.
Our solution suggests an incentive (besides the monetary rewards for ruling cases) as in the more experienced you are (meaning the more cases you have successfully helped to resolve), the more meaningful and important contributions can be accomplished: such as evaluating new jurors' initial credit score.

No Juror will have the power to solely decide on cases or reject / kick out other Jurors.

[horrifiedx1]

I understand the intention behind this, however, I don't see how any community can be totally unbiased. It is simply impossible, and a fee based model would easily be corrupted.

The blockchain is the only middleman that matters in crypto, why would the community need another one? Scams are the more reason why folks should be careful how and to whom the spend their coins. Anything centralized can be manipulated to benefit whoever is running it. A bad idea if you ask me.

Bitcoin was created to cut out the middleman and eliminate the need for trust.
Yes there are hacks and scams happening and decent people are being affected but that is the cost of having a decentralised and open currency we have and enjoy.
I can see the point of the article and it is possible that some form of arbritige could be formed,
What kind of power would they have though?

with the decentralization system in the blockchain, it makes it safer, and avoids fraud, because we send it directly to the opponent of the transaction without any less effective intermediaries

[cluit]

Middleman but decentralized is the decentralized marketplaces we have right now. Basically places like decentralized exchanges and decentralized shop places in the crypto world is trying to achieve exactly this. There are even games where the game mechanics are working towards decentralized game play so you can literally play with each other without any developer making anything better for anyone and unfair for others.

I think middleman is a such huge business that it won't be easy for crypto to cover all that market share in a jiff but it will be there slowly. When people realize they can use a middleman and have trusted platform to either buy or sell something without actually paying for a middleman all free than they will start to move and eventually there will be small problems but the trust will be build over time.

[spongegar]

I don't know. I mean placong a middle man through all this just makes decentralization pointless. If the problen is conflict resolution then I'd guess we can have a sort of judiciary system , which is supposedly the SEC. This entity shouldn't have a hand over crypto currency at all. It just makes them unbiased and all that.

[oathprotocol]

I don't know. I mean placong a middle man through all this just makes decentralization pointless. If the problen is conflict resolution then I'd guess we can have a sort of judiciary system , which is supposedly the SEC. This entity shouldn't have a hand over crypto currency at all. It just makes them unbiased and all that.

Conflicts are unavoidable, especially in a p2p, decentralized world. Think of e commerce, rentals, trading, lending, content sharing, ...
Having the SEC resolving those issues would 1) lead back to centralization and 2) be impossible due to the amount of disputes that occur daily (eventually hundreds of thousands or millions of conflicts arise currently in our society/economy).

With Oath Protocol, we propose a decentralized decision maker, the Community, composed of general users. We start recruiting Jurors very soon. To become a Juror, you do not need specific expertise and can start arbitrating right away on our partnering platforms that include NEM, Qtum, MOAC, Populstay, UNetwork and many more

Feel free to check out our concept, which is based on the common law jury system:
http://www.chinacryptonews.com/sponsored-article/oath-protocol-the-conflict-resolution-system-for-the-future/

[fasdorcas]

I don't know. I mean placong a middle man through all this just makes decentralization pointless. If the problen is conflict resolution then I'd guess we can have a sort of judiciary system , which is supposedly the SEC. This entity shouldn't have a hand over crypto currency at all. It just makes them unbiased and all that.

I believe SEC is not a kind of judiciary system but it is kind of regulatory authority for investors and investment-instruments and its providers. Definitely SEC will not handle basic transactions related disputes. I agree with you that a middleman entity should not have any influence into crypto space. Yes, a middleman authority must have limited power like controlling to only the transaction related things not into the entire system.

We always must need some judiciary system and dispute governing system so that the transaction related disputes will find its solution. When no one will be controlling both the parties(buyer and seller) then the chances of scams will be highly and also no one will be ready to initiate the transaction progress at first.

[oathprotocol]

I don't know. I mean placong a middle man through all this just makes decentralization pointless. If the problen is conflict resolution then I'd guess we can have a sort of judiciary system , which is supposedly the SEC. This entity shouldn't have a hand over crypto currency at all. It just makes them unbiased and all that.

I believe SEC is not a kind of judiciary system but it is kind of regulatory authority for investors and investment-instruments and its providers. Definitely SEC will not handle basic transactions related disputes. I agree with you that a middleman entity should not have any influence into crypto space. Yes, a middleman authority must have limited power like controlling to only the transaction related things not into the entire system.

We always must need some judiciary system and dispute governing system so that the transaction related disputes will find its solution. When no one will be controlling both the parties(buyer and seller) then the chances of scams will be highly and also no one will be ready to initiate the transaction progress at first.

We propose a "decentralized middleman". In fact, smart contracts are also sort of middlemen, but written in code and note driven by human emotions. However, the code is always restricted by itself, we therefore require a complementary third party composed of general users (in the best case scenario) who would jump in and decide what to do.

[BlueStackz]

If you mean middleman in terms of escrow, it have already proved that the need of escrow is most important for any ecosystem not just decentralized one. Because, we cannot predict when a dispute will rise and who will manage that to find a solution. A governing is always good but it should be up to some limit like it should not interfere into the core concepts of decentralization.

In my opinion this could give us, both users and investors, some advantage in terms of avoiding some of the risk when doing transactions. Buying coins is facilitated easily through them but at the expense of adding some to the cost of transactions. But if giving a little to them is worth more than the risk of doing transactions directly maybe it is far more better this way. In my locality we trusted the middle man to do transactions although it cost us a lot but I think it is better than losing your money through unknown or a faraway exchange that may just be another scam.

I understand this is nothing new from what we are already having in this forum in the names of escrow. Yes, when buyer and seller want to protect themselves then they must be needing an escrow to be engaged for their business. I believe this will not affect in any level into decentralized system. But, if it will control the decentralized system then we should not go for it by any means. I mean to say being with decentralized system is more important than having such a system.

[mattukarsamb]

I understand the intention behind this, however, I don't see how any community can be totally unbiased. It is simply impossible, and a fee based model would easily be corrupted.

The blockchain is the only middleman that matters in crypto, why would the community need another one? Scams are the more reason why folks should be careful how and to whom the spend their coins. Anything centralized can be manipulated to benefit whoever is running it. A bad idea if you ask me.

Bitcoin was created to cut out the middleman and eliminate the need for trust.
Yes there are hacks and scams happening and decent people are being affected but that is the cost of having a decentralised and open currency we have and enjoy.
I can see the point of the article and it is possible that some form of arbritige could be formed,
What kind of power would they have though?

with the decentralization system in the blockchain, it makes it safer, and avoids fraud, because we send it directly to the opponent of the transaction without any less effective intermediaries

Yes, you are sending directly to the opponent but what will be the guarantee for that opponent will be sending you exactly for what you are paying. For example in a case of not at all sending or sending lesser in quantity or in quality then how you will handle that situation and how you will avoid such a fraud ?

For this the governance of controlling both you and your opponent is must. This is what OP is explaining.

[GregH37]

Decentralized doesn't really mean that it can't be regulated or it can't be touched by the law, people who are scamming others in crypto world also get punishment too, there are multiple cases involving some ICO owners that get punishments from the law because they have taken peoples money illegally and not give people back what they promised in return.

Decentralized only means the code of it can't be touched. Just to give an example if I steal 10 bitcoin from someone that's still stealing and I will go to jail, however I can't make bitcoin to have 22 million bitcoins as a cap, it is a hard 21 million and won't change. So you see middleman is a good idea that we can all agree would be nice but making it decentralized won't be easy as the code of it can't be touched and regulations would still apply.

[Frobeek]

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

We are also developing a escrow system which will be governing both electronic and physical goods transactions worldwide. We are in plan to engage providing mandatory proof by videos. It means when the sender will be sending out the goods he needs to take video while parceling and also when the receiver opening the person he also must take video for physical goods. For electronic goods, we will handle how escrows are doing in this forum.

[Bitfling]

Decentralized cryptocurrency mean we eliminating third party or middleman like banks for our transaction. Its peer to peer transaction and if middleman used again, i think it will become centralized cryptocurrency.

[nicster551]

In this article, we cover different approaches for Blockchain Governance & Dispute Resolution, a topic that is getting more and more relevant as we are on the road for Blockchain Adaption. Oath Protocol evolves to become the standard in this field. Not only do we propose a decentralized and transparent authority to resolve disputes (bring back the middleman) but also connect Communities and thus actively contribute to accelerate blockchain mass adaption.

Check it out and leave us a comment.

https://medium.com/oathprotocol/the-lay-of-the-land-in-blockchain-dispute-resolution-and-governance-designs-9b97b0e469b8

If it is so decentralized then why we should still need those middle man if we can directly send anything from person to another person?