No problem. Like I wrote elsewhere in that discussion, we would want a
situation where we avoid depending on one system to manage risk in
pseudonymous trade over OpenBazaar:

How do you enforce a contract? How do you prove a package was sent or
received?

Until we have delivery drones that sign multi-sig transactions, we will
always have an imperfect solution! However, I think there is some exciting
room for *merchants law* regarding judgments for disputes.

For example, if the seller is able to provide a tracking number, or
photo/video proof to the arbiter that the package was indeed loaded with
the goods and sent to the specified address, then this qualifies as an
automatic ruling that:

1. The seller's surety bond cannot be broken
2. In the absence of the buyer providing proof, beyond reasonable doubt,
that the goods weren't delivered, funds will be transferred to the seller.

Various arbitration guidelines, organisations can specify what
qualities as *reasonable
proof* for various categories of goods/services. Obviously the *reasonable
proof* required for a chair will be different to a good is banned by an
oppressive government that may land you in serious legal trouble (e.g.
Bibles in North Korea).

A web of trust doesn't enforce a contract, but it does make you lose your
valued trust when you defraud something. At the same time, a WoT identity
is free, and doesn't allow you to (directly) buy reputation.

Web of trust is vulnerable to the long con. I don't want to *only* put my
faith in a web of trust using large amount of funds. Rather, I would prefer
to trust in a combination of:

1. An identity that the pseudonym has purchased for a non-insignificant
sum via proof of burn
2. Surety bond partially or equal to the value of the good I wish to
purchase/sell
3. Track record of surety bond breakages (or lack thereof)
4. Reputation, WoT, and reviews
5. Insurance that I purchase on my part



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, caedes <caedes@???> wrote:

> On 16/05/14 03:26, Washington Sanchez wrote:
>
> There's been a lengthy discussion on reputation systems for pseudonymous
> marketplaces here:
>
> https://github.com/OpenBazaar/OpenBazaar/issues/9#issuecomment-43251990
>
> Of course you can't discuss this whole subject without bringing up
> Justus Ranvier's *Lex Cryptographia* (
> http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/lex-cryptographia.html)
>
> Taking a page from his article, I made the attached suggestion.
>
>
>
> Btw, read your suggestion and sounds very reasonable... maybe you can
> paste in text format so it can be documented better?
>
> Anyways I see the reputation and trust is something you attach to
> identities so I don't see much problem in adding as much proof as you want
> as long as the system is flexible and developers are diligent.
>
> kisses!
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>


--
-------------------------------------------
*Dr Washington Y. Sanchez*
Post-doctoral research officer
Therapeutics Research Centre
University of Queensland
Princess Alexandra Hospital
Woollongabba, 4102
Queensland, Australia