Test our Prediction Market Software: https://forum.truthcoin.info/builds
QuoteAnother problem that I have with TruthCoin though... Doesn't it assume that someone could "buy truth"? Let's say that TC's market cap is 1M ether. I could then create a contract for 2M ether, and buy enough TC to swing the vote in my favour? I'd lose my all TC because of that, and probably kill te whole TC currency, but i'd be awarded for 2M for the contract fulfillment. In oher words - Isn't TC feasible to protect a contract only up to an amount of TC's market cap?
Quote> TruthCoin voter decisions are not used to adjudicate the outcomes of prediction markets in other coins.Well, this is a direct quote from the TruthCoin whitepaper. Article IV, Page 19, section (b).(i.):"Most critically of all, this system will have to sign Withdrawal Transactions so that users can bring Bitcoin out of this system and back into their personal wallets."Also, straight from the Abstract on Page 1:"Bitcoin users can create PMs on any subject, or trade anonymously within any PM, and all PMs enjoy low fees and permanent market liquidity through a LMSR market maker."So it seems that you missed something about TruthCoin
Quote from: martinBrown on June 19, 2014, 12:51:30 AMPurchasing reputation is a type of sybil attack (similar to ballot stuffing). This is often one of the first issues brought up as a weakness in TruthCoin's use of voters, especially when considering the possible scenario where TruthCoin might be used to adjudicate the outcomes of bets denominated in bitcoin. I'm not sure that the current docs are clear enough on how TruthCoin prevents such sybil attacks.
Quote from: psztorc on June 19, 2014, 07:46:00 PMGood + Crazy = ?Another idea, the NashX idea, is to just destroy all Trader's money if the network fails to agree (Global Certainty between .4 and .6). This has the drawback of being insane, but it is very incentive-compatible. You would not 51% attack such a network (buy up 40-60% of the Votecoins solely to gain nothing).People don't usually like this because they intuitively perceive something called the "trembling hand" (accidental / irrational / forward-induction-threat-credibility-building-rational destruction of their entire payout). I don't think the trembling hand is as relevant here, as we can make it costly and complicated to trigger, with multiple people needing to make costly mistakes.
Quote from: zack on June 19, 2014, 11:58:21 PMI really like the idea of getting rid of expiration dates on decisions.It is easy to measure time by blocks in a blockchain, but it is really hard to use 24-hours a day time that humans experience.If you try to connect time to the block verification, each computer says a slightly different time, and it gives lots of forking opportunities.
Quote from: zack on June 19, 2014, 11:58:21 PMI don't understand what "RBCR" means.
Quote from: kolinko on June 23, 2014, 10:21:41 PM- puts a ton of TruthCoins on the main branch by betting all the possible outcomes of an event X - therefore losing only the fees
Quote from: kolinko on June 23, 2014, 10:21:41 PM- then triggers a MetaVote by freezing any one of the branches?
QuoteYou don't "put" [TruthCoins] on a branch. Branches are just created at a point in time, and exist.
QuoteHowever, the people voting in this process are necessarily third-parties
QuoteEven if someone bought up 75% of a branch, people could stop trading on it, and clone the 25% unpurchased part
QuoteThanks for helping to improve the idea! I think I am learning more from this discussion than from anyone else (XCP, BTS, MSC, etc).
Quote from: LimLims on June 24, 2014, 04:58:05 AMPerhaps I misunderstand the dynamics at play here, but if someone successfully manipulated an outcome with 51% of voting power, what would stop them also manipulating the vote for which of top 10 were least accurate?
Quote from: kolinko on June 24, 2014, 10:24:27 AM3) Once the branch is locked, I create an assurance contract to buy 51% of TruthCoins on the main branch. This costs me who cares how many Bitcoins.
Quote from: kolinko on June 24, 2014, 10:24:27 AMPerhaps this is a point I don't understand something.
Quote from: kolinko on June 24, 2014, 10:24:27 AMIt's different money voting, but it may be the same people.
Quote from: kolinko on June 24, 2014, 10:24:27 AMIf your defense is that in case of trouble community will strip away the attacker of TruthCoins or VoteCoins by performing a clone/branch fork, doesn't that mean that I'm really trusting the community, and not the system?
QuoteTo answer both questions, by definition this would cost you 51% of the total Bitcoins (to guarantee this).
QuoteWe are theorizing Truthcoin as a side-chain or as an airdropped Bitcoin replacement (what someone on reddit called an 'alt-ledger'). So, either way, Truthcoin would have the same market cap as Bitcoin, or the largest Ethercurrency (or however they decide to organize their digital scarcity).
QuotePeople do 'mental accounting' all the time
QuoteI agree with you that it is not an acceptable defense