General Category > Design / Incentives / Game Theory

Paying the oracle

(1/2) > >>

zack:
The oracle needs to be over-paid, or else they will steal.

Paying the oracle a trading fee wont work, because any altcoin can participate in gambling without paying the trading fee.

One way to solve this is to crowdfund a payment for the oracle before the oracle agrees to provide judgement over a decision.
That way oracles will only judge over things that pay a high enough fee.

zack:
Ethereum already has bitcoin relay. If hivemind was very popular, they would participate without paying fees.

psztorc:
Yes, Ethereum and Hivemind (and Augur) cannot co-exist. Only one can exist.

Fortunately for me, Ethereum and Augur are badly designed, and live in a toxic no-criticism environment.

zack:
There is a whole class of altcoins that Hivemind can't coexist with.
That is the same thing as saying: "There is a whole class of attacks that Hivemind is vulnerable to".

If you used dominant assurance contracts instead of trading fees, then you could coexist with any other blockchain.
You would welcome and encourage the existence of "parasite contracts". It allows your blockchain to specialize on judgement, and someone else can specialize on trading.

One major way we could improve trading: We should have batch auctions with uniform pricing.

zack:
Augur has a very simple solution to this problem.
The person who proposes a decision to the oracle needs to pay money to the oracle.
Even if there are zero trades and zero trading fees, the oracle still gets paid to judge on the outcome.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version